(Part 2) Best products from r/energy

Their second slide states their design has a greater cross surface area. This is not how it works. The reason area matters is because of this equation:

Power = (1/2) x (air density) x (area) x (power coefficient) x (wind velocity)^3

The area in that equation is dependent on the length of the blades. Not on how much of the circle is covered by blades. So if you have a design with a 50 m long blade, the cross sectional area will be the same regardless of whether your turbine design uses one blade or 15 blades. What changes is the power coefficient.

What they should say is that their design has a higher solidity.

There's a fair bit of aerodynamics at play here. But the maths shows that optimial efficiency (the power coefficient in the above equation) is achieved with three blades. As you increase the number of blades (thereby increasing the solidity) beyond three blades, the maximum power coefficient drops.

With that said, these types of turbines do already exist, mostly in the form of wind pumps. They are designed to work in low winds, with lower RPMs but where high torque is required (to pump water). For those uses, a design with high solidity works. But for use in high wind scenarios where the purpose is to turn a generator, the three blade design works best.

The other problem with more blades is that you are increasing the costs dramatically. The utility scale turbines discussed in the OP are very tall turbines with long blades. The additional costs involved in increasing the number of blades would be very high. Firstly the extra blades would cost money, then the hub design would be more complex, and the hub and nacelle must be stronger/heavier to support the extra blades, this means the tower must be stronger/heavier to support the extra blades and heavier nacelle and hub, and finally, this results in the requirement for stronger foundations. And all this extra equipment also means higher transportation costs.

Also, in the slides, they state that the three blade designs are fixed in their position and can't turn to face the wind. This is simply not true. All utility scale turbines can and do rotate to face the wind direction. It may be the case that small scale turbines do not turn into the wind, but I'm not familiar with turbines of that scale.

So though it's possible that high blade count turbines have applications at which they excel (wind pumps, possibly with small scale generators), utility scale electricity generation is not one of them.

Source: Wind Energy Handbook

That fan is pretty big. Might be better off to send something like this: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4M540J4841&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleMKP-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-PC-_-pla-_-Fans-_-9SIA4M540J4841&gclid=CjwKCAjw3rfOBRBJEiwAam-GsDsOnkscCXpE8V_GHuxwtDWYpkbYqvLXfxgWZ7BQAPY7KwVNn0S5jRoCge8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Edit: the box fan you mentioned uses 120w and needs an inverter to operate vs the camping fan above is 12w and works on 12V DC. simpler and easier to get going with less load, though likely less air movement.

or some other 12V camping fan.

as for the solar, look for something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Foldable-SunPower-Smartphones-Batteries/dp/B07432VBX8/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1506716539&sr=1-4&keywords=60w+camping+solar

it has clamps to charge a battery will fold up for your shipping and is easy to set up.

Yes, You are completely on the money. The problem that we face as a world today is that we are in this 15-20 year period but we are pretending like we are not facing a shortage in the future.

Therefore, if we don't pull it together now -- during this 15-20 year period (please enjoy the read), it will seem like a 1-2 year period.

See China for best practices.

Bang on, I couldn't agree more. I have to say I used to be one of those people who didn't understand Risk, until I read Risk by Dan Gardner a few years ago. It's a great really approachable book for the laymen that covers exactly what you were talking about in a really sensible way. I haven't seen the study you mentioned, but Dan talks in the book about something similar, different examples of policies and their effective per-life costs. I seem to recall that based on the costs of safety systems, the life of an astronaut was valued somewhere around $100 million, whereas from life insurance policies or the industrial safety area a life was valued around the $5 million mark. By contrast as you say, recent (2000's era) environmental policies were valuing a life on the order of a billion dollars, which is wrong because of the alternative uses that the resources that billion represents could be put to.

I don't know how we fix this... It seems to me that the median person understands and accepts risk at a personal level, but when things become abstract and costs are hidden then rational ignorance kicks in and there are just demands for more and more safety.

Part of this has to do with the nature of risk perception. Rod Adams has a great interview on his podcast with Peter Sandman about how Nuclear power runs foul of people's risk perception, and how that leads into Outrage. Rod wrote a short Crash course in outrage management, but the podcast is a lot better, if you have an hour to listen to it.

ayellowbunny :

>That is another fallacy: Its no fallacy because you are a pin head...LOL

>I guess you couldn't find any facts to refute batteries being an economically viable: No need for me to prove anything. You're the idiot saying batteries are viable. So its up to you to provide a link where the factory has not burned down.. LOL

>All the PV cells use an MEMC silicon ingot: I will point out that MEMC provides ingots on contract to every pv manufacturer world wide include Setek and Siemens. You comment just provides you have no clue what you are talking about for the 19th time.

>I never falsely espoused I was wasting my time: I'm just waiting to see your reaction when you realize I am deleting the comments after we are done... LOL

>The fact remains you have not really said anything interesting or important. Plus, its clear you have no clue how any of this works and that is why you cannot just move on. I find your ignorant rant -funny.


>That is another fallacy: Its no fallacy because you are a pin head...LOL

Well the ownness is on you to learn what a fallacy is.

>I guess you couldn't find any facts to refute batteries being an economically viable: No need for me to prove anything. You're the idiot saying batteries are viable. So its up to you to provide a link where the factory has not burned down.. LOL

Well, it’s clear you don’t understand how a supported argument works. May I suggest reading [Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking.] (http://www.amazon.com/Being-Logical-Guide-Good-Thinking/dp/1400061717)
In addition, I really think you don’t understand the difference between product viability and temporary production halt.

>All the PV cells use an MEMC silicon ingot: I will point out that MEMC provides ingots on contract to every pv manufacturer world wide include Setek and Siemens. You comment just provides you have no clue what you are talking about for the 19th time.

All of your are patently posits are false. Do you know what vertical integration is? You should read up on Canadian Solar! Also curious how you didn't respond again about non-Silcon PVs.

>I never falsely espoused I was wasting my time: I'm just waiting to see your reaction when you realize I am deleting the comments after we are done... LOL

You did twice say I was wasting your time and even expressed exasperation, and yet you continue to reply thus evidencing you don’t consider this a waste of your time. Hence you did falsely espouse.
I’m not really sure what you’re looking for. I guess I’m confused why you would delete your replies which you hold to be correct. Although I’m not too concerned as all of your comments older than 16 hours have been deleted. I suppose that's just your MO, ayellowbunny. Besides, you’re aware our conversation is fully cached by Google, yes?


>The fact remains you have not really said anything interesting or important.

Well that is your opinion to hold, but hardly an objective fact.

>Plus, its clear you have no clue how any of this works and that is why you cannot just move on. I find your ignorant rant -funny.

You should as your “sister” about projection.

Finally, I’m very glad to hear you no longer consider talking with me a waste of your time. :)


And for simplicity’s sake:
>I'm sure she will enjoy psychoanalyzing your comments.

Sure. There isn’t much there to analyze, much less make a thorough assessment, but best of luck to her.

Oh, you made me take out Khartchenko. Theoretical efficiency for a supercritical double-reheat steam system, 250 bar and 560 deg. C input steam, condenser pressure 0.04 bar, is 45% . That's with perfect pumps, compressors, etc., two reheat cycles and a very good vacuum at the bottom of the second low-pressure expander. The Carnot efficiency for that is 63% so the Rankine cycle isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

TL:DR "most of power generating plant energy" is being rejected because of the FUCKING LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

EDITED: Also, the power companies do not have "Guaranteed profit margins". They have to go to a government agency to change their rates, so they have a guaranteed sale price. Any efficiency improvements go straight to the bottom line.

They have some good points. Similar points were made by Charles Perrow in this excellent book.

However we have a lot of experience running first and second generation reactors, we had enough statistics to see which things break and we have experience of running large scale industry where each accident results in much more lives lost then Fukushima (and even comparable with Chernobyl): commercial air travel. Thanks to good practices and improved design accident rate in commercial travel is enormously better now then in, let's say, 1960s. Safer nuclear power is possible and even the way it was run before (including Chernobyl and Fukushima) it is historically much safer then any credible alternative, such as coal or natural gas.

I find it interesting that these environmental hit pieces don't propose any reasonable solution. Criticism of the Oil Sands (notice how I didn't say "tar sands? what a shock!) is fair game. But why is there so much disproportionate criticism relative to other oil producing regions of the world?

Is it honestly better to import more oil from Nigeria, Iraq, Sudan, Russia, Saudi??? Yea... those are strong democratic regimes, not corrupt at all, bursting with environmental regulation, equitable distribution of wealth to its citizens, women rights, gay rights, you name it they don't any of it. I'm sure when the Syrian rebels win their war they are going to install democracy, put women in power, and open up the gay bars.

And how much carbon does the oil sands produce? According to research by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, only 6-10% more carbon is produced than oil imported from Saudi Arabia. Oil from Nigeria and Iraq are about the same. Oil Sands have less foot print than Venezuelan Heavy oil, and the worst offender of all is California heavy oil. We should replace all oil from Venezuala and California with Oil Sands oil and we will be better off (if you only care about the environment and none of my other points that is).

If interested in looking at the full picture when it comes to oil sands, check out this book. "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canadian Oil Sands" http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Oil-Case-Canadas-Sands/dp/077104643X

I wish I could recommend a book to you, but I'm no engineer. Consider asking /r/nuclear or /r/nuclearpower?

One chapter of one book I can recommend to you about the politics of the issue in the United States is "The Construction and Collapse of a Policy Monopoly" from Agendas and Instability in America Politics, 2nd edition, by Baumgartner and Jones. These political scientists adopted the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" from evolutionary biology to explain why sometimes issues will stay off the political agenda for many decades, allowing a policy to remain stable for that period, but then suddenly it will attract a lot of attention from politicians, the media, or the public, which leads to a sudden change in the policy. This chapters gives a textbook example of their model of agenda setting and policy change using nuclear power. It gives the story of how nuclear power started with very positive PR ("atoms for peace" and "electricity too cheap to meter") and how that changed. You'll learn why the AEC was replaced with DOE and NRC.

edit: i accidentally a word

Others have responded about the policies you're speaking on themselves, but I just wanted to point out something most people overlook. It doesn't matter if they're a Republican or Democrat, Presidents once elected largely follow through on their campaign promises. Older literature include Fishel's book Presidents and Promises and Krukone's Promises and Performances which detail a lot of the period up to the 1980's. Newer studies, that have been neatly summarized in this 538 article, show that this is consistent with more recent Presidents as well. Trump following through on (in my opinion bad policy but obviously we might disagree) promises isn't an aberration, it's pretty standard practice.

The book Reinventing Fire went into this at some length.

It's hard to quantify exactly, but if you look at the Passive House standard, houses built or renovated to that standard seem to reduce energy use by 80-90%.

• https://www.passipedia.org/operation/operation_and_experience/measurement_results/energy_use_measurement_results
  
• http://smartenergyliving.org/templates/featurestories.cfm?inewsid=71
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
  
  There isn't much info on NY specifically, since the Passive House standard has barely caught on here in the US. But there are a great number of them in Germany, where the movement started.

A quick look at the dimensions on Amazon found these 20W solar panel kits, incl. charge controller measuring 20.5" x 14.4" x 0.7", you can connect those charge controllers in parallel to the same 12V battery.
If you find other "12V" panels then you can connect those in parallel to a separate solar charge controller, a 20A seems overkill but they stay a bit cooler.

For the 120Vac inverter I suggest a 'pure sine wave' model as that is preferred by motors, I think the 300W (600W peak) will be big enough.
They also consume power themselves, even without the fan connected a bigger inverter will draw more battery current.

Do check with your airline about sending batteries, there is a 100Wh limit on quantity, which for USB power packs means <40000 mAh, (preferably in the undamaged original packaging), you could send a few (up to ten?) together with USB charge cables, micro-C for most, Apple's iPhone has a different connector, I think.

With those USB power packs you can power USB lights to read the newspaper and/or move around at night, and/or use small USB fans, a little bit noisy but everything helps.

To charge those USB power packs you can use 12/24V cigarette lighter socket USB chargers, if you can't find a car battery they should work directly of the solar panels (Voc=22V).
That's why I selected the 12V-24V and not the cheaper 12V only.

If you send a larger battery, choose a sealed 'deep cycle' battery, for your airline restrictions: 100Wh = 12V-8Ah, 150Wh =12V-12Ah.
You can discharge those down to 20%, at the cost of number of charge/discharge cycles, 50% is recommended.
Maybe you want to send some crimp connectors and crimp tool (from the car parts shop) as well, (the colour denotes different wire thickness), the 'spades' are needed for the deep cycle battery, and maybe a small car fuse box and (a selecting of) spare fuses to connect the 120V inverter.

Edit: and a small selection of screwdrivers and pliers, just in case.

I don't have references for this, but most farm animals require about 30% of your cropland for their own food. However they provide manure so it makes nutrient cycling a lot easier.

For example see: John Seymour's Book Where he goes on about how awesome cows are just for the manure they provide.

I was reading in David Blume's Alcohol can be a gas That you can use only 10% of your land to produce the Ethanol needed to farm it. However i don't know if this has been studied in practice.

Both methods are more labour intensive, since animals need care and making your own moonshine almost requires learning a new career. This will require raising farm wages to entice people out of the cities (or desperate people) and will not favour megafarms as they are far more dependent on capital-intensive methods.

http://www.amazon.com/Nontechnical-Petroleum-Exploration-Drilling-Production/dp/087814823X

I was in the same boat as you and purchased this book. It is great and I highly recommend a copy to reference throughout your career if you stick with Oil and Gas.

If you are in the Houston area you can borrow my copy for a couple months (I recommend taking notes as you read). PM me if interested.

Oh, I agree -- there's a lot of woo and a lot of pure dishonesty, an "us-vs-them" mentality out there.

To get a look at the underlying motivations for people to mistrust industry, take a look at The Ambushed Grand Jury. It's an in-depth report on what may well turn out to be Colorado's "Love Canal" and how the government closed ranks with the polluters.

Ha, you're like an open book.

>Industry is also the only entity that knows the intricacies of what they do. Regulators do not get the cream of the crop when it comes to hiring. Most of the best and brightest work in industry.

You can't be serious.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292706383

I think the banking industry disproves your theory pretty easily.

>Yes because it could create more jobs in every sector. Everyone benefits from additional high paying jobs and lower energy cost. (one of those Economics things you seem to understand so well)

Thanks for the snarky reply. I seem to remember reading about... negative externalities. Is there a negative side to fracking? Of course people realize it would create jobs. Is it worth it, in the long run, to society to allow this industry to exist?

>"If so, why would you think anyone should listen to you?" -degree in electronics -degree in geology -most of a degree in econ (only have time to take one class at a time right now) I work full time as a research scientist. It is my job to understand how this stuff works.

Appeal to Authority.

>Now that you have questioned me. "Canada did about 100 studies, and 85 of them showed some danger in using it." I call bull shit on this start providing links. I read this stuff every week and I think I could come up with maybe 1 or 2 that have a problem with it.

I found it, but admittedly there is no citation in Wikipedia.

>In 2007 it was reported that among government-funded BPA experiments on laboratory animals and tissues, 153 found adverse effects and 14 did not, whereas all 13 studies funded by chemical corporations reported no harm.

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

What is amazing is that with all the bullshit going on with respect to Climate Change, and the energy companies funding misinformation campaigns, that you would think people should trust you just because you work in the industry. You didn't provide any real information here at all other than to say 'it creates jobs, and I know what I am talking about'. Any business will have an incentive to lie to stay alive, it is a conflict of interest to ask people within an industry if their business is safe. This is pretty basic and everyone knows this. The fact that you try to ignore it says a lot.

I'm even more anti-fracking now than when I found this submission. You're full of shit.

This is not a problem with the analysts, as in different, more skilled, analysts won't solve the problem. It is something more fundamental than that. It is simply impossible to predict the economic future very far. Economic forecasts are only rarely correct, and when it is true it has more to do with luck than anything else.

For a great book on the subject, see The Black Swan.