Re: [WDDM] organization

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

--- Bruce Eggum <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> wrote:

=====================================================
BE:
> Of course Global Warming is a false alarm, like all
> political propaganda.
=====================================================
G;
I would not go that far. The claim of reversibility
by human action is political lie and manipulation.
As to GW, I said and maintain it: "Global Warming (GW)

is doubtless one of the most important, critical
problems the mankind is facing."
My opinion is that GW being irreversible, one should
concentrate on countering its sequels and not, in the
wake of Xerxes, on flagellating the sea with chains,
while making billions on chain manufacturing.
=====================================================
BE:
> The academic community also makes millions extolling
> this and that, arguing
> amongst themselves, sending conflicting reports so
> when knowledge produces
> the right answer they can choose one of their
> suppositions and say see we
> had it right all along. Some even think the
> academics know about governing,
> ignoring the fact they do not have any idea about
> practical application of
> hardly anything.
=====================================================
G:
I frequently said that the Academic Establishment,
like any current Establishment is a noxious circus.
Most scientists don't see the Science-wood for
Equation-trees, thus not getting the gist of their
own domains, let alone other domains where they often
prove exceptionally fatuous, because conceited.
In order to illustrate this point I shall copy to this
list an essay on Copenhagen Interpretation of the
Quantum Theory, which, although not quite pertinent
here, shows the established Physics submerged in
medieval Solipsisms and Panpsychisms.
=====================================================
BE:
> Like you said the real danger is pollution. So stop
> the polluting for the
> wrong reasons. GOOD
> At least the dam pollution will be slowed by
> decreasing use of fossil fuel.
> Wind in it's place and Solar provide electricity
> good idea. I recall Georges
> you are against wind. your reasoning was not
> complete however. But certainly
> forbid the nuke idea.
=====================================================
G:
Once you start fiddling with wrong reasons for right
goal, your goal gets wrecked together with the
reasons.
Main pollution sources are not fossil fuels but
industrial animal breeding and garbage. And forbidding

is of no avail. People will not stop using electricity
and it will stay nuclear and fossil as long as there
is no alternative.
I'm not for, nor against anything, but try to examine
it rigorously. Refuting arguments with a general
non justified "not complete" is not even unfair, but
silly. In order to give you a chance to indicate
what's wrong with my reasoning, I repeat in appendix
the post I wrote to Epistemology list as answer to
Sam's "Eloge of the Windmills". Some parts of it
are not quite pertinent here, but I prefer to quote
it unchanged.

Georges.
====================================================
Appendix, Eloge of the Fraud.

Sam posted a well meant panegyric of Wind Power
in which he says among others:

"In Massachusetts, USA, the 130-turbine Cape Wind
project will generate over 400 megawatts of
electricity - enough for 400,000 homes."

Strange, how many errors may one pack into one
short sentence:

1.One does not generate "electricity", but electric
energy.

2.Megawatt is a unit of power, not energy and one
does not generate power, but installs it. A 100 KW
car does not generate any energy just because I
bought it and "installed" it in my garage.

3.Energy unit would be MWH equal to a MW device
operating for one hour. My car will generate 100
KWH of energy RUNNING 1 H at full power. As one
seldom uses more than 30% of power when driving,
my car will generate 30 KWH during an average 1 H
drive.

Now, as we shall see below, operating time of Wind
Mills is about 10%, which means that Sam's project
will generate 40 MWH, apparently enough for 40 000
homes. Question arises, what happens during the 90%
of non-operating time. One cannot expect these homes
to shut their light, friges etc. for 90% of time.

We touch here the extremely complex problem of
RESERVES, too complex to continue this loose chat.
Let's take it more rigorously from the scratch.

Energy may be classified with respect to the
following criteria: clean/polluting, sustainable/
depletable, permanent/intermittent.

Intermittent energy requires reserves for non-
operating periods. Reserves must come from plants
capable to start, stop, change the rate in matter
of minutes, which restricts them to fossils (oil,
gas, coal). Fossils are most polluting sources even
in permanent regime. In the intermittent regime of
reserves their pollution ratio increases about 5
times.

Following the statistics of EON (German electricity
provider controlling about 15 000 Wind Mills)
operational Wind Mills time averages to 10%, as
they shut down for:
-wind too weak,
-wind too strong (for security reasons),
-wind-blasts (for security reasons),
-ideal conditions, when all Wind Mills work at
 full capacity, because it would heat white the
 high tension lines, which are not build to
 accomodate wind energy picks.
Thus, always following EON, for each INSTALLED
MW of Wind Power, one has to keep installed and
running 0.9 MW of fossils.

Let' have a look at some usual clichés:

Cliché: Wind energy is a practical, efficient
alternative.
Comment: 15 000 German Wind Mills produce 0.4%
of German electric energy. To have an idea of
wind efficiency, imagine a train replacing
electric or diesel engines with sails.
Wind energy is a NON-ALTERNATIVE.

Cliché: Wind energy is clean.
Comment: True for 10% of time. For the rest,
taken integrally with reserves it is the most
polluting form of energy.

Cliché: Wind energy is sustainable.
Comment: False, it may last only as long as
the depletable fossil reserves, underlying it.

Cliché: Wind energy is an alternative to Nuclear.
Comment: False. Forgetting for the moment that
Wind is a NON-ALTERNATIVE to anything:
In order to replace French Nuclear one would
have to cover all available places in France
THREE TIMES with Mills, change France to
3 layers of Mills standing on top of one another.
With fossil plants on top of them for 90% of
the installed Wind Power. And that would replace
the Nuclear for about 40 years, the time to
deplete the fossils. Let's not talk about
pollution. One would not see one's feet through
the smog.

But one does not get a full picture just by
negating false clichés. Let's recall some
characteristics of Wind Power less known to
the public.

COST. A Wind KWH is 9 times more expensive
(in France and Germany) than the traditional.
That for the operative 10%. For 90% of reserve
use the ratio varies from 14 to 40 under
normal reserves availability (see next paragraph).
The extra cost is carried by the citizen in
form of tax increase (state subventions of Wind
Power), or electricity bill.

IMPACT ON RESERVES AND NETWORK. Reserves control
is one of most complex issues of electric network
management. Reserves are there, of course, not
only to support Wind Power, but to compensate
any unforseen drop in supply, like failure of
a transformer, etc. Reserves management is in
hands of a central command unit of a provider.
Once facing an emergency (in Wind case a meteo
message warning of closing the Mills), the
chief manager considers an internet site
offering reserves by international auction.
Offer and demand determine the price usually
fluctuating between 14 and 40 times that of
traditional supply. Occasionally it reached
500 and more.
But what if there are no available reserves?
Simply a black-out like that in the US, in
Greece and in Italy.
One or two Wind Mills of course don't count.
But tens of thousands contribute seriously to
disequilibrate the networks. An EON study
concludes that if the increase trend continues,
the Wind Power may cause a several months
black-out for whole Europe, with consequences
comparable to the WWII.

ECOLOGY. German League of Environment Protection
compares Wind Mills devastation of environment
with the 30 years war. The "Bird Grinders" kill
millions of birds a year in Germany.

NUISANCES. Noise, stroboscopic effects, disco
effects, and infrasounds impact the health and
the quality of life of close residents.

PROJECTIONS. 50 kg blocks of ice projected at
1 km. In several cases of brakes failure 30m
long and 3 tons heavy blades were projected
at 500m.

One may ask, why Wind Mills are so progressing,
if they are inefficient, polluting, depletable,
costly, devastating environment, harmful to
neighbors' health, life quality and life itself?
Sam gave us a partial answer saying: "Adam Twine,
who owns the land for the farm, had no problems
finding investors for the project."
Money is the answer. Wind Power is probably the
biggest fraud of the century. The German Wind
Lobby grifted in the present decade 50 billion
Euros from the taxpayers in form of subventions,
tax reductions, interest free credits and law
obliging providers to buy Wind Energy at 9 times
their current cost.
According to the League of Environment Protection
30% of this money goes to bribe involved
politicians from ministers and lawmakers to
village mayors.

But we did not yet tell the worst: draining all
money and resources, the Wind Monster chokes
other really clean and sustainable alternatives.
In Brittany, traditionally competent in things
of the sea, a company produced an efficient
prototype of "hydrolienne" or a sea current
turbine. Now, that is clean, permanent (no
reserves) and environment friendly. The company
is going broke for want of 500 thousand Euro.
A bit of grifted billions could save it and
its product.

A joke to finish. Rather sad joke BTW. Fossil
and Nuclear Lobbies contribute to bribing the
politicians to promote Wind Mills. Indeed, each
Wind Farm fosters new or secures existing
fossil plants and the Wind Fraud chokes
real alternatives that could get dangerous
for the Nuclear.

Georges

PS. Anticipated answer to friends who will
ask, what that's got to do with epistemology:
Epistemology helps one to know what he's
talking about.
====================================================