Re: [Phys-l] Efficiency problem

[Hugh Haskell <haskellh@verizon.net>]

At 12:38 -0400 05/29/2010, Michael Edmiston wrote:
> I found this whole study to be very sad and very discouraging.  It made me
> realize that doing the right thing is not something that individuals, or
> small groups, or small communities can pull off.  Getting us off of fossil
> fuels and onto alternative sources (whether the sources are wind, solar,
> nuclear, whatever) needs to be done on scales much larger than grass-roots
> projects can pull off.

I have a few questions and comments about this project.

I would think that expecting 50% performance factor for a single 
large wind turbine is rather optimistic, unless you live in a 
particularly windy area (but not so windy that the turbine would have 
to be shut down too often because of too string winds).

Did you consider distributed power generation on campus rather than a 
single large (for the size of the project) generation system? 
Distributed solar power, meaning installing solar PV panels on any 
large rooftop areas and over parking lots, or small wind turbines on 
rooftops (vertical axis turbines are often quite suitable for small 
installations and are less visually obtrusive or noisy), and then 
using the power generated in nearby buildings, where the distribution 
system is already in place might have been a more practical 
alternative, depending on what storage or additional generation would 
be needed for load balancing.

Was the goal of the project saving money, or "getting green"? While 
doing both is great, of course, that isn't always possible, so the 
university would need to consider how much more they are willing to 
pay in order to "green up" the campus.

How are the buildings and campus hot water heated? If either is by 
electricity, solar thermal panels might have been a good alternative 
for either or those tasks, and that would have reduced the electric 
load that would have been needed from the wind source(s).

Were their any federal or state incentives for the university that 
might have reduced the possible pay-back time?

How much effort was put into increasing energy efficiency on campus 
that might have also reduced the electrical demand? Building 
efficiency is often the low-hanging fruit in projects like this--easy 
to do (with some thought and planning) and often much cheaper than 
the electricity used to cover the inefficiencies. But such projects, 
especially those that depend on large-scale cooperation by the people 
impacted need to be as transparent and automatic as possible, and 
combined with a PR campaign to get active participation from as many 
people as possible.

Sometimes, as apparently you found in your study, direct production 
of energy is jut not practical, in which case other alternatives can 
be sought--making the campus more bicycle-friendly; ramping up a 
recycling program; converting the university's motor fleet to 
electric or PHEV wherever possible (and using solar PV in the parking 
yards to recharge electric vehicles); solar thermal projects, as 
mentioned above; converting incandescent lighting to CFL or LED, if 
your campus had a central steam heating system, installing a 
co-generation system could be a consideration, and steam tunnels can 
often be used to do double duty in electric power distribution; 
insuring that all new buildings are designed to be as 
energy-efficient as possible and incorporate improved energy 
efficiency into all existing building renovations; creating a campus 
web-site that will display continuously the current and accumulating 
energy savings due to campus improvements (such software already 
exits and there are several companies that specialize in this type of 
installation--check with the folks at AASHE for details)--programs 
like this have been effective in getting the campus people involved 
in an energy-saving program.

I don't know how narrowly focused your study group was or what the 
initial charter of the group was, but I hope that it's mandate was a 
broad as possible. If all you were allowed to do was look at this 
particular wind turbine and how it could be used, then I think you 
entered into the project with your hands tied behind your back. A 
also don't know whether any of the possible alternatives I've 
mentioned would have been practical in your particular situation, but 
my list is hardly exhaustive. AASHE is in the business of helping 
educational installations "get green," and they can be of great help 
in difficult situations.

Contrary to your conclusion, my impression is that the energy/climate 
problem will only be solved if we use the mantra "think globally, act 
locally" as at least a major part of our thinking in these matters. 
Some things need to be done on a national or global scale, but my 
observation of the Washington scene from close up tells me that those 
things will only happen when the pressure to do so from below becomes 
overwhelming. We have to set the example for the state, federal and 
other national agencies to act by showing them how we can do it 
locally.

Hugh

--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko 
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and 
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them 
get away with it!!

					Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org