Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Even during an administraion that denied AGW, American was pretty green relative to the rest of the world (http://www.newsweek.com/id/185812/page/1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/IMG_1010.JPGStephen Theil - Newsweek (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/Even during an administraion that denied AGW, American was pretty green relative to the rest of the world) - Feb 21, 2009

Next big industry? -- Ed.

This is a trick question. What big country is, by most measures, greener than Japan and Germany and produces more geothermal energy than all of Europe combined? It might help to know that this nation is also a pioneer in environmental stewardship, having passed many of the world's toughest regulations on vehicle emissions, energy efficiency and nature conservation.

It couldn't possibly be the United States. By now all the world knows that America, with its cheap gas, plentiful coal and eight years of a Kyoto-treaty-bashing president in the White House, is the world's biggest environmental villain. After all, America emits 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the European Union for each dollar of GDP. Per capita it's even worse: 20 tons of carbon dioxide for each American per year versus just 8.4 for a citizen of Europe.

And yet, if you were to answer the United States, you'd be more right than wrong. The statistics for the country as a whole obscure tremendous differences among the individual states—several of which, on their own, would rank as major "green" countries in their own right (which gets us to the trick). California, with its 37 million people, emits 20 percent less CO2 per dollar of GDP than Germany. It generates 24 percent of its electrical power from renewable fuels like wind and solar, compared with only 15 percent in Germany and 11 percent in Japan. It also has the world's largest solar-power plant (550 megawatts in the Mojave Desert), the largest wind farm (7,000 turbines at Altamont Pass) and the most powerful geothermal installation (750 megawatts at The Geysers north of San Francisco). Although California isn't immune to the economic crisis—its finances are on the brink of collapse, which could translate into growing support for those who argue that green measures cost jobs—its green accomplishments put it at the head of the pack. If California were a country, its economy would rank as the world's 10th largest and could lay claim to be one of the world's greenest… http://www.newsweek.com/id/185812/page/1

What a crock!

Falls into the lies, damn lies, and statistics catagory. First, you can't say the nation is a leader because a few states are remarkable. And even the state statistics are a bit insane. Altimont pass is an outdated, outmoded example of how not to do it. The picture in the article is showing that pass. Look at the turbines on the small towers. Notice that none are blury, because they aren't turning.

When I was out in California, they were in the process of updating that area a bit, but pretty much the turbines were very small, and built very low. The pass does concentrate the wind, but it also makes it turbulant, so you can't collect the way you might like. Bird kills were also a common problem in this area as the blades were low enough .

A little quote from wikipedia...
The Altamont Pass Wind Farm is one of the earliest wind farms in the United States. The wind farm is composed of over 4900 relatively small wind turbines of various types, making it at one time the largest farm in the world in terms of capacity. Altamont Pass is still the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world, with a capacity of 576 megawatts (MW), producing about 125 MW on average and 1.1 terawatt-hours (TWh) yearly.[1] They were installed after the 1970s energy crisis in response to favorable tax policies for investors.

Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. 1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.[2] The larger units turn more slowly and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife.


At apx 500 to 600MW, it was a large farm, but fairly normal or even small by todays wind farm standards.

As far as exceeding Europe or its various states, on number of MWs....sure, but on percentage we are barely showing. They beat us hands down and Germany won't be loosing the lead anytime soon as they are now looking at 50% renewables and more.

This guy seems to be writing a PR piece while ignoring the actual facts. Must be a reporter. :0

It generates 24 percent of its electrical power from renewable fuels like wind and solar....,

A fact check would show this to be a ridiculous claim.....

When they say "like wind and solar" they must mean something besides wind and solar?

From here:

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=CA

Total california electrical consumption 254250 million kWh

From wind = 4994 million kWh or 1.96%

From Solar = 495 = .19%

I've seen one or two blades running down the highway before, that is an odd site. Not just the payload but the trailer it sits on. Made even more weird by the fact I've never seen a convoy with a whole set, its always one or two.

as to the Geneneration Static..

Recall the Energy issues CA had a few years ago? Prices where so high cause they had limited there generation and was purchasing power?

The static is % of generation they have.. NOT on energy usage.
They may PRODUCE 24% from renewables.. but thay are USING energy from Coal Plants in neighboring states..

Lies - Damn Lies - and Statics is correct

When they say "like wind and solar" they must mean something besides wind and solar?

Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric, inclusive. Hydroelectric seems to be the bulk of California's energy production from renewables.

The picture in the article is showing that pass. Look at the turbines on the small towers. Notice that none are blury, because they aren't turning.

How can you tell it's a time-lapse photograph?

Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric, inclusive. Hydroelectric seems to be the bulk of California's energy production from renewables.

I knew that, but find it deceitful the article picked the 2 smallest renewables as examples.:rolleyes:

A fact check would show this to be a ridiculous claim.....

When they say "like wind and solar" they must mean something besides wind and solar?


I'm sure they mean hydro-electric. Hydro-electric is ~20-25% of the power generated in the WECC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electricity_Coordinating_Council), one of the main power grids in the US.

http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/pix/hf08/wi/667ggiant.jpg
.
_H*

he's still one creepy cat, though not as creepy as in the old commercials I've seen

Hey, when did they put up a statue of me? :o


















;)

How can you tell it's a time-lapse photograph?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I think its a normal photograph done during daylight hours. This style of turbine had small, rapid-turning props so if they had been turning, I would expected motion blur. You can freeze the blades of a nearby turbine with a strobe, but with the number of turbines & the distance between them, that techinique would have been quite impossible...at least during daylight.

a photo at 1/5000 of a sec. you can stop pretty much anything. I have some photos I took at a auto race many years ago and with 1000th of a sec. the car looked like it wasn't moving. kevin

a photo at 1/5000 of a sec. you can stop pretty much anything.

I generally think of time lapse has having to show a extended period of time (seconds to years) either in a single picture or a video that plays in far less time. When you watch a movie and you see a flower go from seed to full bloom in 30 seconds, that is an example of time lapse. Sometimes it also refers to multiple images on a single frame....like a high vaulter with strobes going off every few momements. And of corse there is the multihour shot pointing at the stars and watching them blur.

I don't believe that this is high speed photography either. Such high speeds require either a great deal of light getting to the film (or chip) or a highly sensitive film.
High sensitivity film has an unmistakable grain, and chips capable of beging set that senstive also have a grain like appearance. Color saturation on both also suffer.

The other option was a great deal of light. This does look like a full sun shot, so there is a lot of light, but we are also seeing clear focus on both near and far objects. That suggest a low f-stop. Doing so may still result in shutter speeds in the 1/125 to 1/250 range, but probably not much better. Even at those speeds, you would see motion blur on the blades when they are turning. Even at 1/1000 which was the limit of most the cameras at the time, motion blur was still slightly detectable, but probably wouldn't be seen at the fairly low res picture shown.

Besides all that, I just know from personal experience that the style of tower they were showing had almost no functional turbines, and that was nearly 10 years ago. The reason they weren't being replaced is there were not cost effective. Mainance on the machines generated more cost than the turbines generated revenue. They were in the process of replacing them, and I thought they were going to tear down all the old units (very clear difference....radio antenna vs single white pole). Either picture is older or they changed the plan.

I'm going to be out there sometime in the next few months....maybe I'll have a chance to go take another look.