Wind currents over many areas of the oceans are consistent and undisturbed by landforms. Powerful, clean, and unlike oil, sustainable. Americans seem to think only in terms of what they already know... how can we get more oil at cheaper prices? Always looking backward instead of forward, regressing rather than progressing. Instead of leading the energy revolution, we will end up buying technology from foreign innovators.

EC Now Looking To Wind Power As Future Energy Source

The European Commission has initiated a project to stimulate the development of offshore wind power into an important source of energy.

The objective of the project, entitled Concerted Action on Offshore Wind Energy in Europe (CA-OWEE), is to collect knowledge about offshore wind energy from all over Europe, evaluate this knowledge and distribute it to all who can benefit.

Members from thirteen European countries are participating in the project, which is being led by the Section Wind Energy at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands.

Offshore wind parks promise to become an important source of energy in the near future: it is expected that within 10 years, wind parks with a total capacity of thousands of megawatts will be installed in European seas.

This will be equivalent to several large traditional coal power stations. Plans are currently advancing for such wind parks in Swedish, Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian and British waters.

To support and accelerate this development, the European Commission is funding this one-and-a-half year project, which aims to gather and distribute knowledge on all aspects of offshore wind energy, including: offshore technology, electrical integration, economics, environmental impacts and political aspects.

The partners are from a wide range of fields and include developers, utilities, consultants, research institutes and universities.

The project will focus on the large scale exploitation of the offshore wind resource through the use of very large wind turbines with improved performance, reliability and reduced environmental impacts.

The challenge is to reduce the costs of offshore wind electricity to match those of traditional power stations by continuing the substantial decreases in prices already achieved by onshore wind turbines over the last decade.

The development of a market for large-scale offshore wind farms will bring new business to the existing European wind turbine manufacturers and offshore engineering industry, creating employment for the associated work forces.

The Technology University of Delft has been involved in wind energy research and education since 1977. Currently, the activities are spread across four faculties and focus on aerodynamics, dynamics, electrical aspects, integration into the built-environment and offshore. Experimental facilities include a fully instrumented wind turbine, an open-jet wind tunnel and blade testing rigs.

-- fat americans (killing@planet.earth), October 11, 2000

Answers

Research at the Iceland Polytechnik has proven that extraction of massive quantities of energy from wind will catastrophically destabilize global weather patterns. The wind-farm hoax is a conspiracy between multinational wind-turbine oligarchs and sinister NWO cliques.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 11, 2000.

Very funny Parace. Just wait and see what happens after we're finished sucking all the oil out of mother earth. Earthquakes are gonna get REAL bad, collapsing the crust like an eggshell with the whites sucked out.

-- (dooom,dooom@and.more.dooom), October 11, 2000.

First we'll use up all the oil, then we'll use up all the wind. If we didn't have such a massive supply of hot air (localized in the Washington, D.C. area) to generate convection currents, we'd REALLY be porked.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 11, 2000.

We'll never run out of usable energy. When the easy supply of oil runs low, it'll get very expensive, making alternatives cheaper in comparison. But we'll always have *some*thing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 11, 2000.

Frank--

You are to sensible. That is no fun!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 14, 2000.

Lars:

LOL: but if wind power becomes important, we will another outcry from the environmentalists. Now, in Cal., they have to use equipment to collect the bodies of dead birds that migrated through the blades.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 14, 2000.

>> We'll never run out of usable energy. When the easy supply of oil runs low, it'll get very expensive, making alternatives cheaper in comparison. But we'll always have *some*thing. <<

Yes. Of course there will always be a source of energy. Our ancestors burned wood or dried dung. They built wind mills and water mills. They used their own muscles and the muscles of domestic animals such as horses and oxen. These are sources of "usable energy" that are likely to be with us for as long as there are humans and the sun shines.

But your obviously true comment doesn't tell the whole story. It sidesteps some important information by adding that little harmless looking phrase "cheaper in comparison". The relative "cheapness" of energy is not measured in money, it is measured by the ratio X/Y, where X is the units of energy yielded and Y is the units of energy expended to obtain X.

In even simpler terms, if you burn 100 calories for every 99 calories you eat, you die. If you expend 100 ergs of energy to get 99 ergs of "usable energy" then your economy dies. The ratio 1:1 is an absolute limit on energy efficiency. The better you do on this ratio, the more output you get for the least work. As the ratio approachs 1:1, the worse off you are. This is physics. This is absolute. This is non-negotiable.

Most of the world's present prosperity is based on energy that is absolutely cheaper than the alternatives. By tapping into the earth's oil supply, we have greatly increased the ratio of usable energy captured per unit expended. That equals fat city.

As other types of energy become "cheaper in comparison" to oil, you are obviously talking in terms of money, not physics. Sadly, money has no influence on physics. In absolute terms, as we move to known alternatives to oil, we are getting energy-poorer. Unless, of course, we find energy sources that are as efficient (or more so) than oil. As of today, none exist.

Science, too, is limited by physics. That's why efficiency at wringing every bit of energy out of other sources is such a big deal. That is where the wealth is.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), October 14, 2000.

Yep, Brian, you got that right.

One needs to look at the amount of energy required to produce a technology, versus the amount of energy it will produce during its useful lifetime. At present, oil and coal work. Solar, wind etc require an excess of oil or coal produced energy. The data to support this is available but not on my laptop. Have to go to meetings. See ya.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 14, 2000.

Fear not, Malthusian grasshoppers

COL D FUSION

-- (dalai_lama@wired.mag), October 14, 2000.

"Solar, wind etc require an excess of oil or coal produced energy. The data to support this is available but not on my laptop. Have to go to meetings. See ya.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z "

You're full of shit. Why don't you shove your laptop up your ass so that the shit will quit spewing onto this forum.

Best wishes,,,,,,

-- (sick.of@mr.knowitall), October 15, 2000.

>> Solar, wind etc require an excess of oil or coal produced energy. <<

I think you are not being specific enough here, Z. I presume you are speaking solely of using solar or wind to generate electricity.

Direct conversion of solar or wind power, without passing through the energy-wasting steps of electrical generation and transmission, is cost-effective and energy efficient. Passive solar for heating and cooling is especially efficient. Using a windmill to pump water from a well to a gravity-fed roof cistern is highly efficient. Heck, using a water mill to grind grain is highly energy efficient.

What is usually missing from these direct conversion schemes are economies of scale. Each house needs to incorporate passive solar on its own. This means that each individual becomes his own energy capitalist and investor, in order to disperse the physical plant. Most people are unwilling to acquire the knowledge or assume the risks inherent in building and maintaining their own plant. Once the initial investments are made, the long-term payoff is there.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 15, 2000.

"Solar, wind etc require an excess of oil or coal produced energy. The data to support this is available but not on my laptop. Have to go to meetings. See ya.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z "

You're full of shit. Why don't you shove your laptop up your ass so that the shit will quit spewing onto this forum.

Best wishes,,,,,, -- (sick.of@mr.knowitall), October 15, 2000.

Hawk:

Good to see you back. Where have you been keeping yourself?

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), October 15, 2000.

Brian:

Again, I agree. I was talking about electrical generation. I make extensive use of solar heating in my house. Will get back with some data on electrical generation if I ever escape the east coast. But I am sure you already know this stuff. Hello Hawk.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 15, 2000.

Using animals to perform the work currently performed by fossil fueled machinery is a very enlightened use of energy since animal energy comes from eating plants that use photosynthesis to covert solar energy directly to biomass.

We should not be troubled by picky issues like the loss of billions of human lives (humans are evil, at least other humans are) or the enslavement of dumb beasts of burden or the pollution caused by the manure of the dumb beasts.

-- (horse@buggy.com), October 15, 2000.

"Hawk:

Good to see you back. Where have you been keeping yourself?

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), October 15, 2000."

I've "been keeping myself" right here dimwit. I never left, you fool. Has your brain taken a vacation?

-- lol (some.people@not.too.swift), October 15, 2000.

>> Using animals to perform the work currently performed by fossil fueled machinery is a very enlightened use of energy since animal energy comes from eating plants that use photosynthesis to covert solar energy directly to biomass. <<

Uh. The only source of energy on earth I know of that does not ultimately derive from the sun is the geothermal energy from the earth's molten core.

The use of domestic animals for muscle energy is about 20000 years old. Domestic animals, so far as I can see, are simply animals making a living, like any others. Whether they are mistreated or well-treated is more or less in the power of the humans who control their lives. Either kind of treatment is possible. Wild animals are not given medical treatment. Wild animals are, by the same token, rarely abused by predators. Intead they are merely made prey by them. It is a tossup whether domestic animals are better off or worse off than wild counterparts.

BTW, did you have a point? If so, please restate it. I can't figure it out.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 16, 2000.

Hey Hawk... : )

I just hope the research continues around ductile superconductors and high efficiency solar cells and battery packs. If this technology is refined enough, there will be no need for petroleum-based energy products for "on-ground" use.

It is interesting to note though, that the holders of most of the patents for these technologies either are oil companies, or individuals on the boards of oil companies. You think they know something we don't?

stalkin' the cat...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 16, 2000.