SPS vs. solar/wind/hydrogen debate (Long Post)

On 27 Nov 2003 07:58:35 -0800, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

Don't feel the need to insulate...? Then you shouldn't complain
about energy costs. ;-)
I don't. Heating feul is subsidised relative top other goods, and is
too cheap. It doesn't cover the full environmental cost. Therefore
houses are much less insulated than they should be, even for Britain's

But... as a 'Good Citizen' of the world, shouldn't you be
insulating *anyway*...? ;-)

(Len Lekx) wrote in message news:3fc69061.1221109996@nntp...
On 27 Nov 2003 07:58:35 -0800, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

Don't feel the need to insulate...? Then you shouldn't complain
about energy costs. ;-)
I don't. Heating feul is subsidised relative top other goods, and is
too cheap. It doesn't cover the full environmental cost. Therefore
houses are much less insulated than they should be, even for Britain's

But... as a 'Good Citizen' of the world, shouldn't you be
insulating *anyway*...? ;-)

Yes, one should, shouldn't one.

Sadly, most new houses in Britain are built to a low standard, with no
imagination, using the cheapest materials, by large developers.

In Germany, in contrast, many houses are built by the owner, to
imaginative design and to a much higher standard. They also tend to
make far more use of passive and smart heating and cooling systems.

(Alex Terrell) wrote:
I don't. Heating feul is subsidised relative top other goods, and is
too cheap. It doesn't cover the full environmental cost.

"Full environmental cost" is a meaningless political term, not an
accounting or business one.

Therefore houses are much less insulated than they should be, even
for Britain's temperate climate. They also use far fewer, or no energy
saving techniques.

That's a function of a faulty building code, not of oversubsidized
heating fuel.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) :

(Alex Terrell) wrote:
You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental
drawbacks.

A statement I'm not entirely certain of the truth of. To start with,
you are drawing large amounts of energy from the atmosphere.
Secondly, you will have a bunch of anchor cables (which will attract
and retain algae, sea weed, and critters) as well as numerous anchors
on the sea floor. Lastly you have a significant trenching effort to
bring the power from the farm to the shore.

Don't forget bird kills from the blades, noise pollution into the sea from
vibirations, leaching of chemicals from any plastic/composites used in the
construction, oil spills from the lubication of bearings. What else have a
missed?

The amount from any one windmill is very small, the amount from all the
windmills needed to supply a nation's power will add up.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
(Derek Lyons) :

(Alex Terrell) wrote:
You might want to give a little more thought to offshore wind energy,
which is becoming cost competitve and has virtually no environmental
drawbacks.

A statement I'm not entirely certain of the truth of. To start with,
you are drawing large amounts of energy from the atmosphere.

Negligible up to TW generation. Rule of thumb is 10MW per km2 is
negligible.

Secondly, you will have a bunch of anchor cables (which will attract
and retain algae, sea weed, and critters) as well as numerous anchors
on the sea floor.

Floating platforms are being considered, but near term fixed ballast
structures are most promising. They tend to benefit marine life.

Lastly you have a significant trenching effort to
bring the power from the farm to the shore.

That is indeed a big cost. One point is that as many coastal nuclear
power stations get decomissioned, they provide good access points.

Don't forget bird kills from the blades,

Studies show that this is minimal. Net effect on birds is generally
positive due to increased fish supply.

noise pollution into the sea from
vibirations,

I haven't seen any study that this is a problem. The high frequency
vibrations won't travel well down the tower. Low frequency vibrations
are not a pollution danger, though obviously a key design aim is to
minimise them.

leaching of chemicals from any plastic/composites used in the
construction, oil spills from the lubication of bearings.

Again, I haven't seen any study that this is a problem. I suppose oil
spills is a real risk, though the volume is small.

What else have a
missed?

- Sailors don't like them, as they're a restriction.
- Interference with military radar
- Strategies for calm days is a biggest issue, but quite solvable.
- The construction comapnies learnt their trade in the offshore oil
industry, so can't think cheap, can't think mass production, and are
very conservative.



The amount from any one windmill is very small, the amount from all the
windmills needed to supply a nation's power will add up.

Lets say 50 TW! = 10 million wind turbines covering 5 million km2. At
this point, I say SSP is the only long term hope, though you could
argue that 50,000 nuclear power stations (= 100 in Iran, 50 in north
Korea, 5 in Chechnya, etc, etc) will do the trick.