SunPlower Wind / Solar Energy Device HYPE (from Web Summit 2019)

SunPlower Wind / Solar Energy Device

ABUNDANT CLAIMS of Supposed Energy-Harvest Market Disruption Tech

For any of my readers that have a decent background in mathematics, engineering, physics, and a general inclination towards science and the reality of how things work, as soon as you read the claims made on the SunPlower.de website (yes, that is how they spell it; apparently trying to gain some name-recognition advantage for nearly copying the name of the large American solar company SunPower).  Just one quick look at the "SunPlower" device, which I first saw demonstrated at the Lisbon, Portugal Web Summit 2019, and you will instantly see why the company claims regarding "breakthrough" power-generation (implied efficiency) are completely absurd and utterly misleading for many reasons.

Here are some quotes from their website:

"SunPlower's (patent pending) world’s first Inclined Axis Wind Turbine (IAWT) propeller uses both lift and drag efficiently and reduces expensive & heavy masts costs. In addition to that propeller's blades are flat, which can be used for installing solar panels."

"Breakthrough in Fluid propulsion of both air and water more efficiently and effectively with SunPlower propeller."

"As the pitch of the propellers is synchronously varying while rotating, dust on blades with solar panels is self-cleaned. Its world’s first true Hybrid Solar + Wind technology, along with self-cleaning & self-cooling solar cells reducing maintenance costs."

Those are some rather wide-ranging and bold claims, implied and direct, and, given what was shown at Web Summit 2019 (a device which was a motor turning a windmill-like device whereby a set of gears simultaneously altered the blade angles), these claims are are highly unlikely, if not utterly impossible, to prove out in any controlled test environment (e.g., a wind tunnel).

Why these types of Claims are Problematic

There are many science blogs on the web that have tackled devices like this in the past and exposed obvious problems every time a new "disruptive" or "patent-pending" (not that a patent means anything with regard to efficiency, even if it were granted) or similar new wind-power technology — though, this one wants to call itself wind and solar power in one, or, as their home-page even goes further to state "Harvesting renewable energy using wind, solar hydro and tidal energy leveraging breakthrough technology", which sounds rather amazing.

Without diving too far into details, let's start by the simple fact that this and any other such device must respect:

• Betz's law, which indicates the maximum power that can be extracted from the wind, independent of the design of a wind turbine in open flow.  Every time anyone claims they have created some "breakthrough" in a wind-power device that defies this law, by directly stating so or by implication, it is certainly an instantly dubious device! 
• Bernoulli's principle, which, in fluid dynamics, states that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy — i.e., used to relate the velocity of the flow of air to the pressure difference across the turbine.
• Mechanical efficiency, in general, especially with regards to loss throughout a mechanical device due to friction and gears and so forth.

Next, just looking at how modern wind-turbines work and some of the basic principles, you will notice quickly that the power-generation capability of this SunPlower device is certainly not going going to be in any way revolutionary or disruptive as compared to existing wind-power technology. Start by reading this Quora thread about Why 3-Blade Wind Turbines produce the best compromise between high energy yield and turbine stability and durability, and then keep in mind how this SunPlower device uses a 4-blade approach.

The device demonstrated at Lisbon Web Summit 2019 was fraught with problems and design issues that will certainly prevent it from being any "breakthrough" with regards to power-generation efficiency (whether wind and/or it's combined solar-on-blades idea, with dubious self-cleaning claims) or being produced with any sort of price/generated-watt advantage over many other existing technologies.  First of all, simply put, it is overly complex mechanically and complexity = likely for failure, just as a simple rule of mechanics. There is considerable mechanical efficiency-loss due to internal gearing that alters blade angle as the overall prop-mechanism rotates.

Keeping the Betz Limit in mind, consider the following equation that represents the theoretically available kinetic energy (in Watts) in the wind flowing through an area:

½pSv³

(where p = ~1.23kg/m³ density of air, S = swept area which is πr² with r being the turbine blade-length in meters , v=air velocity in meters/second; also keep in mind that you cannot extract all that power or the wind would stop, and thus your wind-turbine would stop, and because of this, the maximum available power is ~59% of the number arrived at with above formula — modern turbines may reach only 35-45% in reality, and that is before loss in gears, bearings, power-transmission, etc)

Thus, the max power attainable by a turbine is known.
So, this little SunPlower device shown at the Web Summit did not even have blades of half a meter, and the swept diameter was perhaps not even half a meter.  This means very, very low power potential.  I'll keep this rough-out easy though and assume the firm may eventually build a one-meter-diameter-sweep device. So, max-theoretical-power that thing could produce at 10m/sec wind (which is a brisk and rather unlikely 22.4mph average sustained wind speed) would be:

~ .35 (efficiency extracted) x ½ x .25 (πr^2, square-meters swept area) x 1.23 (air density) x 10³ 
... or, .35 x .125 x 1.23 x 1000 ... or, 53.81 Watts! 

THIS IS NOTHING!  We can get so much more out of a simple solar panel!  A SunPower brand ( NOT to be confused with this SunPlower thing) 405W solar panel outputs 200W per square meter!  And, unlike this overly-complex SunPlower device, the solar-panel is warranted for 25 years and has no moving parts; pair it with a simple Enphase IQ Microinverter, and the panel can be easily mounted near a cell-tower and you're all set.  Furthermore, the solar panel alternative is not going to be creating potential cell-tower signal interference like a spinning wind-rotor (especially if those blades were truly coated with solar-cells!).

Of course, my "red flag hype alert system" went off as soon as the developer began talking about how this device could be placed on some 4 billion (or whatever) cell-phone towers to power.  Sure. As could many existing, proven, and simpler technologies like a simple single solar-panel which is an already proven, affordable, mainstream solution. And, make no mistake: the tiny solar-panels on the rotating blades of this SunPlower (proposed) device are not going to produce any appreciable amount of electricity in the same overall footprint as a simple static solar panel, nor will it make much diff when combined with the wind-power (also, bear in mind, it's not like any solar-cells on the blades are all aiming the sun at once and capturing the power, especially given how the WIND is what will dictate which direction the supposed device is pointing).

I admire any attempt to come up with new green-tech, but please, remain aware of the limits imposed by science and the fact that hype cannot overcome such laws.  If this supposed breakthrough/disruptive-tech can prove they have overcome existing laws (like Betz), then bring it on!  Get it proven in lab conditions and you'll have achieved the formerly impossible; but, good luck at that!

Continue to read this Software Development and Technology Blog for computer programming articles (including useful free / OSS source-code and algorithms), software development insights, and technology Techniques, How-To's, Fixes, Reviews, and News — focused on Dart Language, SQL Server, Delphi, Nvidia CUDA, VMware, TypeScript, SVG, other technology tips and how-to's, plus my varied political and economic opinions.

Politics of Green Energy : Propagating Ignorance via Ideology

Humans are hopelessly spiraling toward their own demise — thank politics for speeding the process!  For being the supposed smartest animals on the planet, we sure do everything in our power to prove our ability to ignore fact in favor of ideological beliefs and opinion.  Science and technological advancement is wonderful: as long is it does not surface data that challenges the merits of our individual pursuits — especially the pursuit of "profit".

I am so completely disgusted with the politics of green-energy (or should I say the politicization of green-energy, and the outright disregard for fact — a nice way of saying "lies") as propagated by proponents of existing, carbon-intensive, and ecologically destructive sources of energy.  As is with most ideologically-driven hyperbole, hypocrisy runs rampant throughout the "logic" employed to "defend" what should be nearly indefensible positions for the continued push to use fossil fuels while global CO2 levels soar in direct relation to the combustion of those fuels.

Let me begin by recognizing the fact that not ALL "right leaning" (Republican / conservative / etc) backers agree with the illegitimate position that humans are not responsible for climate change.  In fact, some very noteworthy Republicans, conservative business-leaders, and wealthy individuals are very adamant in their promotion of green energy and ending the human self-destruction that is occurring as a result of fossil-fuels consumption.  But,...

I just read this article about how Americans are split on what is causing global climate change; and, you perhaps you already guessed how they are split: right down political-party lines!  If you consider yourself a Republican (i.e., conservative) you are statistically almost certain to believe the rhetoric spewed by party leaders that push concepts proven utterly false... things like blaming "natural causes" for climate change.  Again, this is PROVEN false, PROVEN!  But, politics make proof become "proof"; science that does not reinforce a politically-motivated position is suddenly just "science"; and so on.

Never mind the fact (and transcripts that back it up from the Bush/Cheney era) that the Republican party's entire strategy for exploiting their political base (to keep carbon-intensive energy running full-steam ahead) was to simply create DOUBT.  It worked.  Many of their followers only needed the slightest suggestion of "doubt" that climate change was due to human activities; they now had what the party leadership desired most: a "position" to cling to regardless of all the true evidence and science to the contrary.  This self-engineered doubt is all they continue to need to reject the fact that human activity is plunging this world into a state of unprecedented CO2 buildup and associated climate change.

Never mind the fact we can use the carbon isotope-typing to analyze atmospheric CO2 concentrations and determine that the CO2 came directly and unequivocally from human activity and the burning of plant-sourced matter (i.e., coal, oil, natural gas) and NOT from things like volcanoes and other ridiculous explanations (whose CO2 emissions produce a different isotope signature).  All the proof just becomes "proof" when ignorance is reinforced via ideology.  It truly is a shame, as we will all pay the price for this ignorance regardless of our political affiliations.

Perhaps we should get to the root-cause of this politicization of climate-change and the creation of any alternative "theory" of climate-change: MONEY!  That's right... like every human activity that goes contrary to common-sense and proof that an activity is bad for us as a whole, money lies at the root of this discussion.  The foot soldiers (i.e., the political masses) that quickly render their backing (by way of votes) to those pushing a particular agenda that is contrary to scientific evidence will likely realize little, if any, economic gain by lending their support to those at the top.  But, there are certainly many individuals and corporations that stand to profit handsomely if we continue to ignore human-induced climate change and continue to embrace CO2-intensive energy sources.

There is a lobbying force (i.e., money) that is intent on keeping their carbon-based cash-cow pumping out not just more money but also more CO2, and they will do anything to continue to ensure they have the votes to protect them and their climate-altering activities; all courtesy of ideological splits among the populace.  Their hope is that you turn off your brain and embrace the ideological ignorance that continues to reign supreme — never mind the fact that we are creating what is likely to be irreversible damage to this planet we all live on.  Never mind that no amount of money will ever make up for the fact that we will have doomed the planet in the process.
 
Now, let us discuss some of that hypocrisy that always accompanies such ideology.  One of the first things we hear is that going green is "too expensive".   Sure, wind and solar and geothermal may appear relatively expensive compared to other energy sources when the cost of environmental-destruction is left out of the equation, but when included, green alternatives are VERY competitive, and they are increasingly becoming more efficient and more competitive at the same time CO2-producing energy is, and will continue to be, increasingly expensive if the true costs of CO2 emissions are considered in the equation.  Solar technology is rapidly evolving and becoming cheaper and more efficient; wind turbines are becoming larger, more efficient, and thus more competitive also.

And, when considering the true cost of burning fossil fuels and the cost (via environmental damage and alteration from CO2 and other toxic emissions), the worst CO2 offender is COAL burning power plants.  The coal industry knows this and knows they have to create yet another lie to sell the public and get the votes to keep their profits rolling in, so they have coined this "clean coal" concept as their solution.  Sounds great does it not?  "Clean" coal.  Sure.  Wonderful.  But, then there is the fact that there is NO SUCH THING and not a single coal-burning power plant is in existence that is not emitting CO2.  And, to capture CO2 from coal-burning is EXPENSIVE and it takes MORE energy (as much as 1/3 of the total fuel burnt generating power will go to power sequestration if we are to capture all the CO2 produced from the plants) and an insanely complex infrastructure to implement.  This WILL end up on your electric bill!  And, of all the insane and desperate acts that humans could undertake, "clean coal" (and similar carbon-capture schemes) ranks number one.  Investing in such a dead-end is not "investing"... it is flushing money; but, for as long as you are willing to flush it into the coffers of the coal-industry, they will willingly take it.

Next there is the "clean" natural gas crowd.  Sure, it produces 1/2 the CO2 emissions as coal burning, but where is that gas coming from and what emissions are involved in the acquisition of that "clean" natural gas?  Watch the movie Gasland for starters and you will soon understand that this is anything but a "clean" fuel... hydraulic fracturing technology is what is enabling this (lie known as) "clean" natural gas, and it is causing widespread release of hydrocarbons and chemicals into the air and groundwater.  But, money rules the world and the natural gas boom throughout the USA is producing enough cash to retain the number of votes they need to continue this toxic energy pursuit.

We do not have the resources to waste on existing dead (and deadly) technologies while the remainder of the world passes us by with renewables.  As we flush our money (or, should I say other people's money - since so much of our money is *debt*) down the drain on carbon-intensive energy production, we are flushing our future simultaneously.  The politics of energy production are making us waste valuable time and money on unsustainable carbon-based technologies when we could be truly investing (where spending our money will produce a return in the longer term and not just go, quite literally, up in smoke as we burn carbon-fuel sources instead).

Please consider the true cost of carbon-based energy sources in any comparison to green-energy that you make.  Take time to understand the science behind energy production (and associated emissions).  And, get the facts about how much power is hitting this planet every day just in the form of sunshine, which we CAN easily harness for our power needs.   There is an amazing abundance of alternative energy available to us; what is not available in abundance is the propagation of this fact and the associated facts about human activity causing global climate change and CO2 rise.   I sure hope humans can overcome political ideology before it is too late.

USA Trade Deficit : OPEC factor. How to reduce it!

Why are these constant and increasing trade deficits "unexpected"?  I am so sick of reading that type of headline, when it is so obvious that we (as a country) are not doing anything to alter our behavior in a way that would actually bring about long-term trade-deficit reductions.

The latest report I read on Bloomberg today was titled: "Trade Deficit in US Widened More Than Forecast in January".  I just laughed when I saw the title with the "more than forecast" (since economists constantly botch this), and as I read the article and encountered words like *unexpected*, it just reinforced my view of the USA and its inability to recognize a systemic risk to our way of life. Money is going out of here that is NEVER coming back, and it is doing so at such an astonishing pace that is is almost unfathomable.  But, we do not change.

I can not help but find myself getting very frustrated at the stupidity of this country racking up insane trade-deficits with China and OPEC (nations).  This latest report shows "The trade gap with China grew to $23.3 billion from $20.7 billion as imports rose and U.S. exports declined. The U.S. shortfall with OPEC nations widened to $9.9 billion as imports increased to the highest level since October 2008."  Well, when it comes to the sound-bite media, we always keep hearing about CHINA and trade deficits, well... what about OIL?

OK, can we please take note of how huge the OIL side of this equation is?  OPEC is like their own mega-country that is sucking a full 1/3 of the total China/Oil trade-deficit total.  This is an incredible sum going to fueling and heating our country.  We really need to do something to ween ourselves off this externally-sourced energy supply and stop the hemorrhaging before it gets worse.  And, it WILL get worse.  We never learn!  Do you remember the 2008 election promises to finally, this time, break our dependence on oil (as our dependence was killing us with $4/gallon++ gasoline back then)... and, here we are, after all those "this time will be different" (which I laughed at back then KNOWING it would not change)... it is still the same!  We are collectively moronic in our behavior.

Why did this become a politicized battle between the "right" and "left" in the USA?  This is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE... our security is so at risk (over externally supplied energy) that is should scare the heck out of us, but it sure seems to not matter enough to address it.  If I were the President right now, I would address two issues at once: the budget, and this energy issue (and jobs too).  The "untouchable" military budget needs to be partially-redirected toward National Security in the form of building out an internally-sourced-energy infrastructure that will make us more secure.  If it is the only way to allocate funds to such a massive effort, so be it!  Who else has 1/2-Trillion/year budgets to tap into?

We need to work on updating our power grid and DE-CENTRALIZING our power-generation.  I do NOT mean "clean coal" (which is bull@#$!) or other net-carbon-intensive energy production, but rather a distributed series of solar, wind, biofuels (non-food-competing) and the like, all tied into a smart-grid and using superconducting-wire to save the 50% efficiency loss we suffer currently on the grid.

I keep seeing all sorts of advertisements from OIL companies saying how they are working on biofuels, solar, geothermal, etc. And, who better to work on these things?  They have the distribution abilities for the liquid-fuels and gases - like those that would result if we use solar/wind to create hydrogen for widespread use, or methane captured from bio-production, or bio-diesel, etc.  They have the drilling expertise to do large-scale geothermal wells to tap massive heat-stores deep underground.  They even have the wind/solar (companies like BP have pretty good sized solar-production and wind-farm investments already).  They have the rig-builders for erecting massive off-shore windfarm platforms. What they perhaps need is a darn-good incentive to really make the move to these things: give it to them!  We are draining $120BB/year out of the USA just for oil!  Funnel that into alternatives and the incentivising of alternatives (i.e., massive tax-breaks and credits).

Wake up people... if we refuse to tackle the massive China trade-deficit issue, let's at least target the oil issue. And, perhaps some more GREEN jobs would be available to help the unemployment picture at the same time!??  This country is otherwise to remain totally messed up!  $10 BILLION PER MONTH is going out (on oil), and not coming back. $120BB/year!

Do you realize how much eco-friendly-power-generation capacity, and how many JOBS related to that, we could be had for $120 billion per year? WOW! With solar arrays approaching $1/Watt (heck, lets call it $2/watt for high-estimate)... we could purchase, in ONE YEAR, 60 GIGAWATTS worth of solar capacity just with what we would have spent on oil!! Holy cow! And, wind is cheaper than solar, generally!  Realistically we can not realize that level of watts/dollar, as the issue of supporting infrastructure requirements come into play, but we can sure implement a LOT of capacity.  And, this is capacity that keeps paying us back year-after-year (have you heard the term "renewable"?!)

Let us put our drilling-crews to work boring some mega-geothermal projects; let's get those rig-builders building off-shore platforms for large-scale wind-turbines (these oil guys are VERY experienced at building large platforms in water of all depths!), let's get some of our unemployed people back to work by connecting an up-to-date power-infrastructure, building and erecting solar/wind systems, and implementing biofuels facilities.  Now!

Are we otherwise trying to prove that we are a culture that has lost all sense of reality and reason, and show that we can live in denial forever?  From what I constantly see in action, I would swear this to be the case.  Collectively we stand by and watch our standard of living erode as we all whine about it, but yet we also continually vote for politicians that will not stand up and do anything substantial to change our ways.  I am an American, and I want to live in an America that wants to show it has the vision and drive to right itself and do so in a manner worthy of world recognition.  We have the talent.  Let's put that talent to work freeing ourselves of this foreign-energy addiction and constant money-suck that is jeopardizing our way of life.

Beware of Cannibals!

Ted Turner (of CNN-founding fame, and mega-millionaire status), recently made some rather interesting comments on PBS about how extreme the global situation could become if global warming continues unchecked. One of the dire warnings he put forth for consideration was the prospect of how people, when pushed to the limits with lack of available food, may resort to cannibalism. Here's some of the what was discussed with regards to the global climate change issue:

If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, "We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.

"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."

OK, so this all sounds a bit extreme, or does it?
Fact is, Ted Turner may well be right!

I for one, at least while in my right mind (during this pre-catastrophic-earth period), tell myself I would rather just die of starvation than eat another human being, but who knows... if pushed to the brink, maybe I'd essentially become a zombie where only my deep animal instincts drove me to seek out any and all available "food", be it human or not.

Perhaps Ted Turner had just watched the movie Sweeney Todd (the Demon Barber of Fleet Street), and noticed how Johnny Depp's character (and his fellow house / business tenant) took to killing many a human and turning them into meat pies (which, they served to unsuspecting London consumers during what they characterized as "desperate times" or "hard times"). If 19th Century London is bad enough meat is so scarce, then I guess Ted Turner's 21st post-global-warming-catastrophic-earth conditions would make that look like nothing, and (human) meat-pies may be the menu-item of choice.

Now, instead of becoming a cannibal this year, I have just begun work on my new garden. A nice chunk of the yard (formerly just grass) is becoming what I hope will be a productive vegetable garden. I am doing this for a few reasons: 1) food prices have skyrocketed! and 2) I don't want to rely completely on others for my food. I want variation in my diet, and with this insane push for Ethanol, it seems the only 100% sure way to get the vegetables / crops I want (without paying a fortune) will be to grow my own. So, here's hoping this experiment pays off. And, with luck, I'll raise enough home-grown food I won't have to resort to cannibalism! :)

Highest Mileage Cars : 80MPG+!!

You read that correctly - production cars that get 80+ MPG. Yes, EIGHTY MILES PER GALLON. They exist! But, it seems that we (here in the United States) keep having to hear from the major auto makers that "we just can't build cars that get more than 30MPG" and along that line of thinking).

Oh, did I mention these are MAINSTREAM BRAND-NAME automobiles from Volkswagen and Mini too? I so want one of these 80MPG Mini-Coopers... or, heck, I'll even settle for the 80MPG VW Polo!





MY GOD THAT IS SOME SERIOUSLY AWESOME GAS MILEAGE!
Combined miles-per-gallon in excess of 70MPG! Oh how I want one!

Even with both of these vehicles being Diesel powered (vs. gasoline), and with Diesel currently being more expensive here in the United States than gas, with those numbers, who cares!? EIGHTY-EIGHT HIGHWAY MPG for the little VW! Wow!

Now, here's the catch: this is for the UK (United Kingdom) / European market. Sorry, you can't get one of these in the United States, for various reasons. First, they supposedly don't meet our emissions standards (though, you can sit on the highway and watch as many emission-EXEMPT semis, tractor-trailor rigs, buses, and other "exempt" vehicles spewing a choking black diesel smoke all the time, and THAT is "ok"?)

I was in the UK in the sumer of 2007, and I had a chance to drive a rental car that was made by a subdivision of GM - and it achieved 45MPG average, in a mid-size vehicle, and while burning gasoline. But yet, I have no chance of getting such a car here in the USA. This really, really miffs me when gas is in excess of $3.00/gallon, and $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon gasoline seems like it is just on the horizon... especially thanks to price-fixing essentially, where refiners have learned that by simply lowering their output, they can hit record per-gallon gas prices -- today's report showed how refinery utilization here was at something like 81% now... or, barely above post-Katrina (hurricane) levels. Supply/Demand curves mean nothing when nobody is willing to actually COMPETE!

We hear all the time how we "need more refineries", yet as consumers actually started using less fuel, and refiners saw margins falling, they simply cut capacity. And, at a mere 81% of capacity, we have a fair amount of "slack" in the system - should anyone decide to actually put it to use. I call this all price manipulation one way or the other. In a truly free market economy, with ample competition, SOMEBODY would sell fuel even at "thin margins" because they would have an opportunity to gain market share. Not here. Not now. There isn't enough competition left. I heard some bonehead on NBR (Nightly Business Report) talk about how if we had a recession, that prices would fall -- well, again that logic depends on supply-demand curves meaning something, and as demonstrated lately, even when demand falls, it just doesn't matter, since refiners simply adjust supply downward to keep prices up.

Fact is, the American consumer has little choice but to pay high prices for gasoline (and yes, I realize it is MUCH lower here than in Europe), while not getting the choice in high-mileage vehicles that Europe has. Auto companies claim they can't make them, or that nobody would buy them, etc. etc.... and, I really don't think oil companies want any downward spiral in consumption to ever have a chance to take hold. I'm also not kidding myself either: most people, even given the choice of a high-mileage tiny vehicle would still rather have the sportier, higher horsepower, fancier, ritzier, trendier, etc. etc. vehicle at their disposal, and would be willing to pay for the fuel it requires.

But, some of us would really really love to have a little commuter-car that gets 80MPG... or even 70MPG... or 60MPG... or 50MPG. And, you give me the option of something as stylish as a Mini-Cooper that gets 80+MPG highway (and 60MPG City), and I am in line IMMEDIATELY to buy one! It'd be a no-brainer from a gas-savings / payback standpoint. But, thanks to our government, various corporate interests, and all sorts of other junk, I will not get that opportunity, and instead will be forced to drive something much less efficient (perhaps that is a good thing, since lately I rarely drive anywhere!). But, I want the CHOICE to purchase a super-high-mileage car here if I want to.

Note: there are some nice electric vehicle options on the horizon, though I really doubt they'll ever materialize either, and if/when they do, I GUARANTEE electric rates will soar - and, most electricity will be from COAL or oil or natural-gas burning anyhow, thanks to lobbying efforts by those industries. If solar and wind-power generated electricity can be used to "fuel" these future electric vehicles, I'm all for it. Otherwise, forget it.

USA Wind Energy Statistics

I just finished reading a report on where the United States stands, relative to the rest of the World, in regards to Wind Energy (a wonderful alternative energy option we really need to exploit more!) I was quite delighted, and a bit surprised, to see that the US added nearly 45% to its total wind power output capacity in 2007 - adding a whopping 5.2GW last year (that's Gigawatts - or, thousands of MegaWatts, or Millions of Kilowatts). Not bad!

We have a LONG way to go to offset our insane consumption of carbon-based energy (this included ethanol by the way!), but at least the high energy prices are finally encouraging development of alternative energy sources like large-scale wind farms. Here's an excerpt of the report I was reading (courtesy of Technology News Daily):

New developments in 2007 have seen the USA continuing to lead as the biggest annual market with 5.2 GW of new installations, followed by Spain and China, which added 3.5 GW and 3.4 GW to their total capacity respectively.

The North American market experienced the strongest growth with a spectacular 5.2 GW of new installations in the USA alone in 2007, more than double the 2006 figure. The US total wind power generating capacity was expanded by 45% in a single calendar year, injecting an investment of over 9 bn US$ or 6 bn EUR into the nation’s economy. The new wind projects account for about 30% of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally in 2007 and will power the equivalent of 1.5 million American households annually. With the total installed capacity in the US now standing at 16.8 GW, it can be expected that the US will overtake Germany as the largest market for wind energy by the end of 2009, provided that growth continues at the current rate.

Good news, but...
Now, let me get to the complaints I have with our screwed up tax system in the United States, specifically in regards to tax credits for windmills, tax credit for wind power, etc., especially the disparity between what corporations can get [TONS!] (in tax incentives, abatements, credits, you name it!) vs. what the average homeowner can get [ESSENTIALLY ZERO]! In America, where the government is controlled by corporate special interests and lobbyists, all of the "tax relief" (as GW likes to call it) with regards to alternative energy goes to the existing predominately carbon-based Energy companies (that run the government these days). Sounds a bit messed up? Darn right! Especially while these large energy companies are raking in record profits!

Here's how completely messed up this alternative energy strategy is in America: you and I the taxpayers give our money to the Federal, State, and Local Governments, which in turn give the money to big energy companies in the form of dollar-for-dollar tax credits (for "investments" in wind power, solar power, etc)... those companies get to essentially build (at no cost to them) large wind-farms, solar power generation facilities, and the like,... and then the same companies that got the massive tax breaks get to sell the power generated by the capital you paid for (with tax credits) back to you perpetually. What a deal!! (not for us, the American public though!) Our deal is a simple one: we get screwed forever under this type of plan. And, this plan is not good for the health of our economy - I'll explain more in a bit.

But, this is the ONLY power-delivery model that the big corporations and government will support. They will not offer YOU the tax-credits to put power on your home, decentralizing the power-generation system in this country (which, by the way would also enhance our National security - but, sorry, big business doesn't want that if it interferes with their profits!). Compare this to Germany where pretty much anyone can reap the rewards of alternative energy tax incentives.

Fact is, big energy is scared to death of there being any REAL alternative to the existing model where you, the consumer, pay them over and over to fill up your tank, power up your appliances, and so on, forever. These companies and their lobbying powers have convinced our government that moving away from this energy-delivery model will "hurt our economy" or something (well, it will hurt their own profits if they don't adapt! And, that's what matters to them.) And, the government fears not being able to TAX YOUR POWER you generate (since, we have sales tax, excise tax, and taxes upon taxes on energy consumption now that the government "needs" for building roads, and more often, just wasting!) So, couple the fears the government has of potential lost taxes from the consumer (the whole time preaching "tax relief for individuals"), with the fear power companies have of losing their god-given "right" to collect revenue eternally for selling us power, and you have a formula that spells one thing: NO CHANGE WILL EVER OCCUR!

Here's the thing about this mentality: it's just plain ignorant (aside from the reality that "greed is good" to these folks).

Doing it right: decentralized power generation
The fact is, a decentralized power-generation model where we leverage alternative energy to push power-generation to the point of consumption (the home, or businesses) via solar power or wind energy, reduces the reliance on "the grid", and creates a much more scalable, reliable, power system overall. In theory, it can be more efficient too, as line-loss is reduced, and there should be a corresponding push for higher-efficiency appliances, lighting, heating, and cooling to make the most of locally generated power.

JOBS! Yes, JOB CREATION, JOB GROWTH, and a whole new manufacturing and service industry will arise from pushing power generation out to the homes and business locations. Who do you think is going to install and maintain all those windmills and solar systems and battery-backup systems and power-interconnects, etc.?? Yes, a veritable army of workers will be busy getting this country converted over to power-generation from sun and wind sources. And, with that income comes income tax, and likely sales-tax on the services (well, at least is States like Ohio that will ultimately try to collect sales tax on anything!).

Now, how about the economic impact? Simply put: HUGE! Our ECONOMY will boom if we incent ALL consumers to install windmills and solar panels. Aside from the job creation I mentioned already, our reliance on foreign energy can plummet. This current sucking sound (our money going to the Middle East constantly) is a huge burden on the economy, and a giant outflow of cash! Trade defects could be positively impacted in a huge way as we kept that cash "internal" to the United States and used it to build energy independence. Perhaps if we are really smart about things, we'll also learn to build and export some of the physical products needed for solar/wind (to other countries - and actually help our trade balance out), though I suspect the temptation to outsource manufacturing of all the physical goods to China will be overwhelming. Either way, we'll have our "service sector" jobs installing and servicing this stuff forever!

Also, if we use existing roof-tops for solar arrays, we won't be wasting any more land just to get the area needed for solar farms. A minor issue perhaps, or maybe not? Just multiply out the square-footage required for enough solar cells to power one house, and multiply by the number of households in America to calculate required acreage for an equivalent solar farm: the number is huge!

A comparison... this same decentralized strategy model is used regularly in computing environments to disperse processing and storage across multiple physical machines and locations in order to minimize single-point-of-failure prospects while increasing resource utilization (especially the processing power of desktop computers which tend to be underutilized / idle much of the time).

It can work, and it would work, if our government would take some serious action to encourage wide-scale distributed alternative energy (through personal tax incentives). The curent $150 BILLION idiotic short-term "economic stimulus package" currently nearing reality in Congress will do NOTHING for our economy long-term.

You want long-term economic security? Put that $150 BILLION into PERSONAL TAX-CREDITS (DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR) for implementing alternative energy (wind/solar) at the home and small-business level - and, spread this out over a few years so workers and windmill/solar producers can keep up with demand. The money will stay in the country, unlike the current "tax rebate checks", which might as well be 90% signed over to China as soon as consumers receive them!