Wind power

[Earthling]

Hi, kiddos

For the first time in a long time, the interweb godz have allowed me back into the monastery. I trust everyone is well and happy.

At my job, I'm pretty heavily involved with grid-scale windpower projects. They are pretty controversial up here, at least among a certain portion of the population who are convinced that windpower will be the end of civilization as we know it. These projects can be pretty impressive. I had some preliminary discussions about a project the other day, that if it goes through to completion will have over 60 turbines at 3MW each. The towers would be around 90 meters tall, and the blades would add another 50 meters or so to that at the top of the circle. This is fairly typical of the projects that are coming in these days, though the number of turbines is highly variable. Complaints typically center on visual impacts, noise, and environmental impacts, with environmental impacts further divided into bird and bat mortality and forest canopy/topography alterations.

I'm curious to learn how you folks view these projects. There are something like 165,000 functioning grid-scale turbines worldwide, with more going up almost daily. They are pricey to construct, but cheap to operate. They don't pollute while generating electricity. (arg, I'm biting my tongue here) I don't want to go into detail about the way we look at these projects from a regulatory standpoint or anything else, because I don't want to color your views with any of my inside knowledge. I'd like to get as much information as I can about how they are perceived by rational people around the world (that's you guys) as opposed to the single-topic screamers that I get at work.

Anyhow, I'll greatly appreciate any feedback, and I'll try to answer any questions you might have about these things.

[Griffin NoName]

Good to see you Earthling.

I am in favour of windpower and not too bothered about the landscape as we spoil that with so much other stuff anyway. But I realise I don't really know anything much about them. So maybe you know something that if I knew would change my mind. ?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Being a fan of renewables, I have looked a bit into it (although not as much as I would like, see, not that much wind inland in FL) and it would seem that the only downsides are related to bats/birds and the classic NIMBY issues, which I find almost ludicrous when you compare it with coal, or worse, nuclear power. I know that the price per watt has come down enough to be competitive with fossil fuels in the medium/long term and that a few studies have come out lately reviewing the potential impact on wind patterns if large scale implementation occurs (no impact). I even read a blurb in Scientific American in which there was a hint that if the towers were painted black there would be far less impacts with bats.

What the actual ecological impact with birds/bats would be if large scale happens is a legitimate question but we're talking millions of squared kilometers planted with turbines, and I imagine that both solar thermal and photovoltaics will be part of the solution (price per watt is higher and waste pollution problems a bit higher with those), plus where will those wind farms be located.

Considering that a) the impact of fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater, and b) it will take decades for the energy cartels to allow massive implementation, I believe that while those considerations are valid, they don't really apply to the short/medium term.

[Earthling]

As with most things, the more I learn about these projects, the more questions I have. They do kill birds and bats - but no one really seems to know how many. They make electricity, but not at 100% of their capacity, since wind is variable. They don't actually replace coal/oil/gas fired generation, but they probably help offset the need for new plants to keep up with growth in demand. They are subsidized by the government, but the money spent subsidizing big wind is a fraction of the money spent subsidizing the incredibly profitable oil companies. To build them, it is necessary to cut down a bunch of trees and build roads - but logging does that in spades up here. The pads and foundations have to be pinned to ledge, which requires blasting and leveling some area around each turbine - but large-scale metal mining (and even good old granite quarries) do that at much larger scales. They make noise - but so do ATVs and snowmobiles and chain saws. They certainly are visible on the landscape. Some people like the way they look, some don't, others don't care.

So, I suppose I might know something that might turn your view around, but chances are it would be a two-sided coin, and you'd have to balance a gain against an adverse effect.

[Swatopluk]

One medium term problem is that they need a much more extensive electrical grid than the classic fossil fuel plants.  The literal volatility of wind power can even out over large areas but only if the power generated can be reliably distributed over the same area. The grid must be dense and requires intelligent handling. The US are decades behind even Europe on that.

[Sibling DavidH]

I live a kilometre from a long, high slope which forms the 'horizon' of the lovely view from my house.  If they do start putting the dreaded turbines in our area, that'll be one of the first places.  Nobody here wants the damned things.  OK, call me a nimby, but why vandalise the landscape with these monstrosities which take FSM knows how much energy to make, for minor and doubtful benefits?

Not far from us is the Severn Estuary, which is the perfect site for tidal generation on a really major scale; they say 5% of the country's needs. Predictable, reliable, constant output.  No government has ever gone for it because they're frightened of the huge initial outlay, plus the bunny-huggers will start ranting.  So we get these bloody windmills because politicians can build them cheap and everyone can see that they're doing something.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One of the solutions to several if the issues of wind power, is to locate these well offshore-- not so far as to be beyond the continental shelf areas, but far enough that they are not that big a deal, visibility-wise. 

By locating them out there, they get pretty constant trade-winds coming onshore (or blowing offshore, as the seasons progress).   

Furthermore, the majority of birds, and all bats (AFAIK) , are coastal critters, preferring the tidal areas to feed on-- too close for these projects.

And finally, being so far offshore, you cannot hear them at all, over the waves hitting the beach.    About the only complaint, would be fishing boats would have to avoid them-- but how hard could that be?  With modern tools, any fishing boat worth it's salt has some sort of radar or sonar gear, either of which would bounce a lovely signal off these things, letting the captains easily avoid them.  More over, the ocean is huge, and there just wouldn't be that many turbines in comparison.

[Swatopluk]

Around here offshore installations can still be in the path of birds since both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (and the Mediterranean at least in parts) get crossed by swarms of them during yearly migration.
And offshore installations cost significantly more both in installation and maintenance.

Btw, the typical bird/bat death is not caused by them getting hit by the blades but by the turbulences trailing the tips. The sudden pressure changes can cause fatal lung and tissue damage.

Personally, I just want the next wind turbine to be far enough away that I don't get hit in case of a crash. Otherwise I am flexible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW2OLoth4

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The problem with offshore is that the cost of laying down a power grid for those towers is incredibly high (BTW, tidal is incredibly expensive to implement for similar reasons). The truth is that massive implementation isn't pretty, but then again, a large coal or gas plant isn't a pretty sight either. On that end self generation using both smaller turbines and photovoltaics is significantly more palatable for the NIMBY crowd.

The reality is that energy demand is always going up and some places will be used for energy generation regardless of what kind of power is used, no one living in the vicinity will like it, but more plants will go up regardless, usually in places where lower income people lives, in which case it is drastically better for their health to have wind turbines around than a coal or a nuclear plant around.

[Griffin NoName]

I think I heard we (UK) have more offshore than any other country. No stats on birds killed or knowledge of distribution.

Anyway, Boris wants a Thames Estuary Airport which will kill more birds, and people if the birds get into the engines, or propellors or whateverer (I''ve forgotten).

[Earthling]

There are both offshore and tidal projects under review at work right now. Tidal looks promising on the face of it, but there are potential issues with fishing vessels and with "bottom rights" claimed by lobstermen. Offshore wind, as Zono and Swatopluk point out, is pricey and inconvenient. Risks to bats are eliminated for the most part (I am unaware of any migrating bats that cross oceans), but birds are still at risk. Typically regulators are only concerned with species that are either endangered or economically significant, and I'm not up on the prominence of those species offshore, as I have not been involved in the offshore project yet (though I'm sure that will change). Tidal power generation has huge potential, due to its predictability and to the much larger amount of energy available in a given volume of moving water. If the pilot project can demonstrate that the hardware is durable and reliable, we will probably have several megawatts of generation on line by 2017 or so, and if they can sort out the fishermen, significantly more by 2025.

DavidH, I'm struck by the intensity of your reaction. Wind turbines are damned, dreaded, bloody monstrosities. Is it just the potential visual impact that gets your blood up? I'm pretty sure that a location within 1 km of a turbine is going to be protected somehow, most likely by noise regulation, and possibly by a physical safety setback requirement as well. Our regulations for physical setback require a minimum of 1.5x(maximum turbine height) setback from property lines and publicly accessible areas. Noise is regulated based on modeled sound pressure at protected locations (like your house). Typically, in the mountainous areas I deal with, noise levels attenuate to below allowable standards within half a mile or less. However in my experience, wind turbines don't make enough noise to disturb me, even right up next to them. Of course, I lived basically under a runway at Logan International Airport for five or six years, so I'm pretty used to tolerating loud noise.

At any rate, I'm wondering if you are the only one here who lives in a place where you might end up seeing some of these from your front yard? Are there city-dwellers here who don't consider the visual impact because compared to a city, these things are a minor to nonexistent scenic blight? Also, from a lay perspective, what sources do you consult for information about wind turbines? Are any of you already impacted by them?

[Griffin NoName]

I'm in a city so not really affected. In the rare occasions I see one, I rather like it. If there are several, I rather like the look of them. As you said, people differ on this.

I wonder if people objected to sight of the first castles built on top of hills?

[Sibling DavidH]

DavidH, I'm struck by the intensity of your reaction. Wind turbines are damned, dreaded, bloody monstrosities.

That's the attitude of most folks around here.  We see them nearby, eg just over the border in Wales, and we do not want them here.  They're horribly ugly and stick out like a sore thumb - you can't ignore them.

If they were clearly a useful asset, I suppose more people would grudgingly accept them.  As it is, add up all the CO₂ generated in making and installing the things, plus the extra power lines and so on - they probably won't save that much in their working lifetimes.  Anyway, a conventional station has to run all the time to back them up.

We have plenty of reliable streams high in the mountains which could each drive a Pelton wheel.  We have plenty of sites for tidal generators and for slow turbines in the rivers. Even in the UK we can do a lot with solar power. So why these wind things?  Politicians go for cheap'n'easy fixes which can be seen operating, and now there's a big industry with a stake in producing them.

I'd be surprised if you'd find a politician whose country home gets blighted by wind "farms".

[Swatopluk]

I am a big city dweller too but in the surrounding country there are a lot of installations. I might limit my approval slightly by saying that I like them when there are a few here and a few there, so they become part of the landscape. A windfarm 'monoculture' would be something different, at least if one would have to dwell near them. A long line or a small cluster can bring some excitement to a boring scenery (and the North German plain can be extremly dreary, esp. on cloudy days), a large area plastered with regular rows side by side like a parade is a different thing.

[Bluenose]

HI Earthling, good to see you here again!

I don't mind the look of wind turbines and I am highly suspicious of the claims of health effects caused by the low frequency sound they make.  However, one of my concerns is that I don't think the whole of life costs of these units has been done.  The cost benefit ratios I have seen always work on the assumption that once up they will stray up.  However, they are mechanical devices and like all other mechanical devices they will from time to time break down.  At least over here, none of the costings I have seen seem to make any allowance for repairs and maintenance.  Similarly what happens when they reach end of life?  As I understand it, wind turbines have a useful life of about 25 years.  What happens then?  Finally my main objection is to those who claim that wind power can provide base load power.  This is arrant nonsense as the wind does not blow continuously or at the same rate all the time.  Renewable energy is a great idea and I do believe we need to move to a much greater proportion of our power from renewable sources, but many of the proposed ideas have very serious environmental impact of their own which we need to take properly into account.  Tidal power, like hydro power can have major impacts on aquatic ecosystems.  Photo voltaic power has some not particularly eco-friendly process in its manufacture, wind power has some issues with visual amenity and potential direct adverse effects on bird migrations - although scientific testing in Australia ahas show that the impact here is mild.  In the end, as unpalatable as it may seem, I think the only available long term energy source may well be thermonuclear, in effect harnessing the power of the sun directly down here on earth.  I had hoped that we would have achieved sustained fusion by now, but it seems not much closer than it did 40 years ago.  Oh well...

[Swatopluk]

Any solution has to think large, as in distributed over a very large area like a continent. That way fluctuations can be equalled out with a limited amount of conventional power. But as said that needs a dense and sophisticated grid and not all eggs in one basket. Widely distributed wind turbines, photovoltaics and solarthermics more concentrated in desert zones, hydropower in the mountains, tidal power at the coast plus gas turbine plants that can be switched on and off quickly as equalizers.

As for longevity, the Chinese swamp the market with at best mediocre workmanship at dumping prices. Many a modern windmiller found out that he made a bad bargain when after a few years or a single slightly above avarage storm their turbines failed or came tumbling down.

There is an idea from the early 20th century to solve the cloud problem for solar plants. Float the grid above the clouds using large balloons and tied to the ground with long cables (that also connect it to the grid). Then the main obstacle was (perceived to be) the lack of cables that would not break under their own weight. In cases of extreme weather the whole installation would be either wound down to Earth temporarily or (if that could not be done in time) released to fly to safety.
Maybe not really feasible but at least interesting.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

And then?  There's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

[youtube=425,350]CqEccgR0q-o[/youtube]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is no such thing as an energy production system that doesn't have down sides, absolutely none whatsoever, the question is how bad are the bads and how good are the goods and check the balance.

Lets start with the worse offender: coal. Probably the dirtiest method of energy generation which benefits from the bargain low price of coal and the familiarity of the plants in question. Despite what the industry might claim the lovely stacks not only directly affect the surrounding population (health issues are well known) but pump, not only CO₂, but other heavy metals into the atmosphere, including the now ubiquitous mercury that anyone eats every time (s)he has a piece of tuna. There is no such thing as clean coal and carbon sequestration makes the production so expensive that no one wants to actually implement it.

Natural is gas is cheaper and slightly cleaner but it still pumps a significant amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, not to mention the lovely effects of fracking if you get your water from subterranean reservoirs. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if I still lived in my hometown of Bogota at 2600 mts above sea level, but at this point everyone here (and half of the planet's population) lives near the coast, which is rising. Put the price on that.

Then there's nuclear, which is incredibly expensive (and existing only thanks to overgenerous subsidies on each country that has implemented it), and has this particularly dirty fuel. The general mantra has been that if you are careful and disciplined no harm will come from a nuclear plant, the Russians were reckless, the Americans careless, but look at the Japanese, who would've thought that the next nuclear disaster would come from the disciplined Japanese! To top it all the only ones that seem to be managing nuclear right are -gasp!- the French which produce the majority of their energy with nuclear and recycle the waste limiting the amount that needs to be stored, yet I'm sure you can hear the French protesters against nuclear from the other side of the English channel on a clear night.

Fussion is a pipe dream, not happening in two or perhaps four generations, even ITER is experimental, it will produce energy for less than a minute running (because it is way back from the time we can run a Tokamak 24/7) and with a life inversely proportional to the hours it can run due to heavy neutron bombardment which makes the reactor itself brittle.

That leaves us with renewables.

Hydro is destructive to the ecology of the rivers it uses and generates methane if large portions of vegetation go underwater, also the larger the project the heavier and that has proved to be problematic from a geological point of view (see the issues with earthquakes in China due to their very large reservoirs). I imagine it is possible to make hydropower less destructive, but then again that would make it more expensive.

Photovoltaics currently use semiconductors for their fabrication and that has been a contentious aspect, both for cost (which has been coming down significantly) and disposal. Things are getting better on that front albeit slowly as the panels use less rare earths, and are more efficient so that the energy cost of building them is less and paid of faster, although you still need to run them for a few years before reaching that point. Price per watt is also coming down enough to be considered for personal use.

Solar thermal is still on early adoption, plants are expensive to build and when you use molten salts to keep the generators working when there is no sun, there are question regarding their disposal. Given the big item price not that many corporations are willing to bite until they feel comfortable they will get their investment back.

Tidal has the same early adoption issues of solar thermal, very expensive and a very reluctant industry.

That leaves wind. As said before there are ecological concerns with bats and birds, offshore is expensive to implement (BTW, considering that those facilities wouldn't be that far from the shore, they may be on the paths of a number of migratory and coastal birds, that impact is still to be determined). Noise is a concern but not as big unless you are living under the towers themselves, which BTW is a no-no. Manufacturing costs aren't that big, and they seem to repay themselves in both energy and CO₂ quicker than photovoltaics, obviously they require maintenance but then again all forms require it in one way or another, while I don't have specific numbers at hand my main suspicion is that maintenance is drastically cheaper than maintaining a coal/gas fired plant, a hydroelectric plant or even worse, a nuclear power plant. Failures (as spectacular as they may seem) have far less impact on the surrounding communities (think of a coal/gas plant on fire, the failure of a dam or even better, a radioactive release into the atmosphere), at first glance only photovoltaics and tidal seem safer on that aspect.

And then there's NIMBY. Nobody (and in many cases in his/her right mind) wants a power plant next door. How would a couple of stacks pumping vapor/smoke do to the view? Or the respiratory illness common on the surrounding area of a coal power plant? Or do you want to have a nuclear power plant close by? How about a nuclear disposal facility?

On the other end, how do you think a large array of solar panels look over a valley? In my subjective opinion wind turbines look far better than the alternatives. Obviously between not having them 'polluting' the view and having them it looks prettier without them, but then again power plants will go up somewhere.

In my view the age of wind is coming because that balance between the good and the bad is starting to go to the good compared to the alternatives.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One of my favorite scenarios, would be to pave all the roadways with solar cells.   Apart from rush-hour traffic, the majority of the time, the roadway is directly under that lovely-lovely sunlight.  (I'll leave the engineering issues of creating a solar panel that can withstand traffic as an exercise for the student.  It's only engineering, after all )

Another possible location, is roofs-- every dwelling conceived of by humans, has to have a roof-- even the earth-sheltered ones have an earthen "roof".   And those super-tall downtown buildings?  They are each and every one sheathed in glass these days.  Multiple-square meters of glass.

Suppose we replace roofing materials with solar panels, and office building's sides (at least on the south, west & east sides) with see-through photo panels? 

The buildings in question are already there, spoiling the landscape.   And the greatest power demands are in the cities anyway, so there'd be easy access to a power grid.

You have to cover these things anyway, with something-- why not cover them with something that has double-duty?

Food for thought.

And another thing:  why not place modest vertical wind turbines (i.e ones that rotate in the vertical axis) on top of large buildings too?   The majority of birds affected by these, would be the pest species anyway (i.e. roof-rats, or pigeons).  I doubt we'd see any serious impact on their over-abundant populations from these roof turbines.

[Swatopluk]

One idea is to build vertical wind turbines into the power line pylons.

[Griffin NoName]

...........but then you'd get rampaging power line pylons escaping across the savannah!!

[Aggie]

If one considers that birds tend to be sensitive to air pollution, I suspect that fossil fuel (and especially coal-fired) power plants are far, far, worse than wind in terms of bird mortality.  Hard to say regarding bats; I have to wonder if there's something about the frequencies of noise produced by the mills that befuddles bats.

And another thing:  why not place modest vertical wind turbines (i.e ones that rotate in the vertical axis) on top of large buildings too?   The majority of birds affected by these, would be the pest species anyway (i.e. roof-rats, or pigeons).  I doubt we'd see any serious impact on their over-abundant populations from these roof turbines.

Or, ever noticed how there's nearly always a constant wind along major roads? Why not small vertical turbines lining roadways, in areas where winds are highest? Many major highways have existing power lines running nearby.

[Earthling]

It's my understanding that the vertical axis turbines are less productive than the big pinwheels because of the shorter moment arm - they can't turn a heavy enough armature to generate MWs of electricity, only a few KWs. Colocating them with power pylons is an interesting idea, but I wonder about the potential for the vibrations to damage the transmission lines. I'm sure the power companies would be quite paranoid about it.

I'm not sure what the rest of the world does regarding worn-out grid-scale wind projects, but up here we require funding for decommissioning to be built into the business plan of a wind farm. Decommissioning means taking everything down - down to two feet below grade - and restoring the roads and pad areas to their original condition. Also, most operators allow themselves the option of replacing the nacelles when they wear out (20-25 years) with new ones, using the same towers, thereby dramatically reducing the overall cost of the project refit when compared to a new project.

I am considering requiring my current project (and likely all future projects) to curtail operations when winds are less than 5 km/s as a way to prevent bat mortality. I read a study today that shows an approximately 80% reduction in bat mortality with this level of curtailment, at a cost of approximately 2% of generation capacity for an 8 month annual curtailment period (no need to curtail when temps approach zero F).

Failures like the one in the video Bob posted are extremely rare. Another red herring that is enthusiastically championed by the professional NIMBYs up here is fire hazard, also extremely unlikely. Annually there are literally hundreds of thousands of forest fires started by human carelessness (#1) and lightning (#2). Turbines have caused fires, but the historical total is very small (can't remember the number, certainly less than a thousand and possibly less than a hundred. that research is back at the office). The technology in these things is constantly improving. GE just made a change to their 2.75MW unit within the last month or so that boosts its output to 2.85MW without changing its acoustic signature or maintenance schedule. Siemens introduced a 3.0MW unit within the last six months or so. I understand that there is a 6.0MW unit available for offshore applications.

Aggie, that is a fascinating point you raise regarding the potential mortality associated with coal and gas fired generation. I wonder if anyone has studied it enough to make a valid comparison of mortality per MW of capacity.

[Sibling DavidH]

We have too many people in prison.  Treadmills, generators, free power.

[Swatopluk]

... to curtail operations when winds are less than 5 km/s

Wind farms on Jupiter? 

Failures like the one in the video Bob posted are extremely rare.

The usual way is a simple collapse of the structure because of crappy workmanship. And it's usually the cheaply built Chinese models that at times swamped the market.

Btw, I posted a link to that video already on page 1

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We have too many people in prison.  Treadmills, generators, free power.

Wasn't that the way they worked Oscar Wilde to the death?

[Swatopluk]

No, Wilde lost his fight to the death with the wallpaper (no info whether it was one of those deadly ones dyed with ScHweinfurt Green)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Btw, I posted a link to that video already on page 1

Please forgive me, if I failed to credit you properly.  My bad.

I'd seen that video via theCHIVE awhile back, and it seems appropriate to embed it where I did.   I seldom click links.  (combination of lazy & paranoia-- but, I've never had a computer virus, and I've been doing PC's since 1981...)

[Lindorm]

Here in Sweden, wind power is somewhat common, and definetely a growth sector, including some large-scale parks. Apart from NIMBY-ism, there has also been some serious and sound opposition to wind power projects for mainly ecological reasons, but also from the tourist industry. If you have an industry dedicated to showing people beautiful unspoilt countryside, a line of wind turbines might not be the best of views, nor beneficial to the lightening of tourist wallets.

Quite a few large industries here in Sweden have gotten on the windmill wagon, mostly as a complement to their base power needs and as a cheaper alternative to buying capacity on the spot market. When the industry has no need for the generated power, they can sell it to any power company connected to the national grid. Environementally-wise, if you already have a huge paper mill or open-pit mine and have already terraformed the area beyond any recognition, I suppose no-one bothers about a few windmills being erected on the site.

[Swatopluk]

I seldom click links.  (combination of lazy & paranoia)

Me too. This time it was just for the surprise factor that I did not use the youtube display tool.

[Aggie]

We have too many people in prison.  Treadmills, generators, free power.

Calories require massive petroleum input, and the human metabolism isn't overly efficient, so you're better off burning CH₄. I've done years of environmental work in the oilpatch (aka wiping big oil's arse); conventional gas is better than oil in terms of petroleum-based contamination, but it still isn't pretty. Salt spills remain a major issue with gas, and can screw up the land much more visibly and persistently. Also, much of it is sour and the H₂S concentrations can kill you dead on the spot, in Alberta, anyways.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Calories require massive petroleum input

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

[Griffin NoName]

Calories require massive petroleum input,

How did stone-age man get his?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Calories require massive petroleum input,

How did stone-age man get his?

By eating the fat-layer of wooly mammoths... of course.  

Later on, man learned to mine the deep-fat deposits from The Fifth Elephant

[Swatopluk]

Calories require massive petroleum input

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

The idea is not new. I have read a Reneaissance or late medieval text that described the idea of driving heavy mobile machinery with windpower (imagine your typical Dutch windmill on wheels (which were driven by the sail shaft). If one could pull siege powers into position with them, then they could easily pull the plow too (given the materials of the day, they would have barely been able to move their own weight if at all).

[Swatopluk]

I wonder if people objected to sight of the first castles built on top of hills?

Less to the sight but to what it meant: their ruthless subjugation

[Bluenose]

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

The idea is not new. I have read a Reneaissance or late medieval text that described the idea of driving heavy mobile machinery with windpower (imagine your typical Dutch windmill on wheels (which were driven by the sail shaft). If one could pull siege powers into position with them, then they could easily pull the plow too (given the materials of the day, they would have barely been able to move their own weight if at all).

You know, for some reason this reminds of a scene in the Goon Show episode The Great Trans-Africa Aeroplane Canal.  Eccles and Bluebottle had been sent out from England to break a strike by 40,000 British workers digging the canal.  Bluebottle says to Seagoon "Captain, this machine can do the work of two men!"  Seagoon asks them to demonstrate it and Bluebottle replies, "Well, you'll have to help us. because it takes three men to work it..."

[Sibling DavidH]

Love the Goons, but sadly I've never heard that one.  Like so many of Milligan's mad jokes, there's a nugget of wisdom in there.

[Swatopluk]

It's a variation on the old saying that computers help us to solve problems we would not have without them.

Best ways to ruin a company:
1. Gambling - the fastest way
2. Women - the nicest way
3. Computers - the sure-fire way

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

You know, for some reason this reminds of a scene in the Goon Show episode The Great Trans-Africa Aeroplane Canal.  Eccles and Bluebottle had been sent out from England to break a strike by 40,000 British workers digging the canal.  Bluebottle says to Seagoon "Captain, this machine can do the work of two men!"  Seagoon asks them to demonstrate it and Bluebottle replies, "Well, you'll have to help us. because it takes three men to work it..."

Yes, yes it does-- and more to the point?

Those 3 men must be better educated than a mere ditch-digger.  Engineers, even.  As such, they would demand a higher salary too.  Education tends to bring with it a realization that work isn't everything, so they'd also insist on more reasonable working hours as well...

... and so it goes.

[Bluenose]

Completely aside and for those who love the Goons, the script for the episode in question is here

[Aggie]

Calories require massive petroleum input

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

One of the necessities of truly non-petroleum energy is decent electric construction equipment. There's a lot of diesel necessary to erect any sort of infrastructure.  The fossil fuel burden of something like a hydroelectric dam must be immense, once production of concrete, trucking, digging, pouring etc. are factored in.

[Sibling DavidH]

Thanks for the link, Blue!  I've bookmarked it.

[Lindorm]

Calories require massive petroleum input

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

One of the necessities of truly non-petroleum energy is decent electric construction equipment. There's a lot of diesel necessary to erect any sort of infrastructure.  The fossil fuel burden of something like a hydroelectric dam must be immense, once production of concrete, trucking, digging, pouring etc. are factored in.

Yes and no. The initial construction of a hydroelectric dam does consume a lot of fossil fuels, but if you look at it from an LCC perspective, i suspect things change a lot. The Swedish railway network is to a large extent powered by hydroelectrically generated electricity, and I do know that the national rail infrastructure board has looked into these questions to a rather detailed level. I'll see if I can dig up some information in english later.

Meanwhile, what with human-powered springs and all, I suspect that this thread needs a reference to the works of Paolo Bacigalupi: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Bacigalupi

(Actually, his stories set in the "calorie company" universe are both very good reading and very thought-provoking dystopias)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting Lindorm-- I added his "Windup Girl" to my "books to buy" list.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Calories require massive petroleum input

Unless the tractors, combines, trucks, plus the fertilizer are powered by... wind turbines!
 

One of the necessities of truly non-petroleum energy is decent electric construction equipment. There's a lot of diesel necessary to erect any sort of infrastructure.

Actually, they could use biodiesel... provided that the vegetable oil is a net producer of energy (something that doesn't happen with current ethanol production from corn, but happens when you use cane sugar), or that the algae processing becomes a practical reality outside the lab.

Practical electric heavy machinery will certainly take a while to take over but there are already a number of electric light machinery in use.