iSixSigma

Green Six Sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Green Six Sigma

Viewing 82 posts - 1 through 82 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51702

    Swaggerty
    Participant

    Hi All,
        I’m looking at kickstarting a project to improve my company’s carbon footprint and consequently cut energy costs too. If there are any projects that you can share with me/ suggestions as to what has been implemented, as well as challenges faced, that would be highly appreciated.
    George 

    0
    #179956

    Nolan
    Participant

    George, this green stuff is baloney. Put it in your advertsing that you’re Green – that’s where green has impact.
    As for projects – prioritize them relative to your strategic objectives and how far off the mark you are with each for targetted values. Or, base them on your customer’s needs.
    If lowering energy costs is the output of this effort – great. Then look at where you are spending on energy and do a project based on the source of those expenditures.
    Carbon Footprint – give me a break! I can’t wait until the next cute, key phrase comes out. Then everybody will be mesmerized by me at the cocktail party.

    0
    #179964

    Taylor
    Participant

    George, although I agree with Les and Al Gore is an idiot. My company (Spanish owned) is following Keoti agreement standards for tracking and reporting GHG numbers. As a sister to them we have started doing that here in the states as well. To further complicate this we are now requiring all of our suppliers to report the same (850 suppliers) just for our company. The math is simple enough, the question is how far do you want to take it.
    The simple things are Paper, Electricity, Gas, etc. These items generally have the largest impact of all business’s. So where to start? Invoices, go back through the last year of invoices for gas and electricity, several websites out there that can calculate GHG Kg/CO2 eq per KwH and MMBTU.  Once you have this then you can look at various ways of reducing the numbers. Timers on lights, programmable thermostat, Paperless systems, etc etc.
    Next step, take a survey of all employee’s as to what vehichle they drive, how far the drive to work (round trip) etc etc and then calculate the GHG for that. Not much you can do to reduce, but communication sometimes spurs people to maybe commute together or ride the bus, etc etc
    There really is no end to how detailed you can be at this. Don’t get me wrong its JUNK science at its best and you wouldn’t believe the arguments that have taken place during this implementation. If you want to discuss off line post your email and I will send you some data that we already have collected in some general overview information.
     

    0
    #179971

    hbgb b62
    Participant

    Junk science aside…
    Every “savings” would really be an avoidance, passed on to the next schmuck in line who buys offsets…Ponzi scheme based on junk science…greeeeaaaat!
     

    0
    #179973

    Taylor
    Participant

    HBGB
    Can you imagine trying to quantify that? I set in on a conference call last week for 3 hours, and I could not beleive what I was hearing.
    I will say this, today it is nice and sunny out, so I have the shades up and my office lights off. Just doing my part. Just to keep the balance I drove my 1991 Dodge 4×4 with 400hp to work today.

    0
    #179975

    Nolan
    Participant

    I don’t know the numbers but the per capita usage of power has to be a fraction of what it was 30 years ago. Not just auto fuel effieciency but think about replacement parts – mufflers, brakes, shocks, points, et al. Don’t have to make them don’t have to throw away the worn out ones. Televisons – solid state not vacuum tubes; HVAC units more energy efficient by an order of magnitude, on and on and on…
    Plus in my town Rosita’s Cantina closed so there is far less natural gas on the west side.

    0
    #179977

    Frank Whittel
    Participant

    Sounds like a perfect disaster !
    Using the nonsense of six sigma to address the nonsense of Global Warming !

    0
    #179986

    Mikel
    Member

    Frank,Very intelligent response. Wow, proud and ignorant in the same post.

    0
    #179989

    Swaggerty
    Participant

    Hi Chad,
        That would be great. My email id is [email protected]. At a group level, I sense that our company has tentative plans, but i am looking at focussing on it from an entity level.
       Looking forward to your email, so that we can discuss this offline.
      Thanks & regards,
    George

    0
    #179995

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Frank,It’s not about Global Warming. A quote from yesterday’s inaugural
    address – “each day brings further evidence that the ways we use
    energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”If you don’t believe that is true or worth addressing, I can’t imagine
    how anyone could help you.

    0
    #180005

    Kluttz
    Member

    That quote is spectacularly disingenuous as it relates to global warming and national security.

    0
    #180007

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    With all due respect, I disagree. I think the threatening of our planet is
    with regard to the threat of further escalation of violence and war.

    0
    #180009

    Nolan
    Participant

    I agree Gary. And when it appears we have greater reserves in both the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska than all of the Mid-East, you have to wonder what our boys in Washington are thinking. Can you imagine the shift in power throughout the world if we no longer needed Mid-East oil? Huge!
    Something is seriously wrong.

    0
    #180010

    Taylor
    Participant

    George, I am traveling so may be a day or two before I get back to you
    Chad Vader

    0
    #180011

    Kluttz
    Member

    That’s all well and good, yet entirely beside my point. 
    When I said that the quote was disingenuous, I meant that the quote was disingenuous. 
    To Les’s point below, it requires a willful suspension of disbelief to buy Obama’s assertion that he really believes that energy usage props up our enemy’s.  Because if he sincerely believed that, he’d be all for drilling offshore here and opening up ANWR (Bush’s very mention of that possibility in June/July of last year triggered the current 6 month decline in gas prices – http://www.oilnergy.com/1gasoli.htm). 
    So if we can stipulate that limiting supply drives up oil prices, and inflated oil prices enrich enemies of the state, and Obama supports limiting supply, then the quote is disingenuous.

    0
    #180016

    Tony Hayward
    Member

    Hi Chad
    I’ve enjoyed all the crytic comments from everyone about reducing carbon footprints or otherwise!! But as we are enjoying probably the deepest recession in the UK in history, I’m game for making any worthwhile savings in waste. So if senior management buy into all this carbon footprint stuff, lets go with it and use our scientic knowledge and technical skills for maximum effect. Are you willing to extend your offer to George to send more data that you have, also to me. It will really be appreciated and well used by your allies across the Atlantic. My email is [email protected]. A recession must be the greatest and quickest way to reduce carbon emmissions!!! Thanks in advance – Tony.

    0
    #180024

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I disagree. I believe the quote is genuine and accurate. The proof is
    in how it plays out.Let’s give the guy more than a day in office to see how he rationalizes the rhetoric.The danger in your solution is we don’t develop alternatives. I’ll bet
    we see both happen.To paraphrase Ronald Reagan – You ask for 180 degrees hoping to
    get 2 degrees.

    0
    #180028

    Ziggy
    Member

    It is sad to see supposedly educated individuals unable to tap thier inner self to be aware of the truth around them.
    I learned in graduate school that no matter how far out a position is their is always someone with the exact opposite position ( the basis for the futures market).
    After eight years of the WORST ADMINISTRATION IN U.S.HISTROY
    How does anyone have the nerve to continue to support those ideas ????
    Amazing

    0
    #180031

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I believe there is a reason to tap more domestic oil in the short term,
    but every decision has to be accompanied by a bigger position in
    sustainable domestic alternatives.The only thing wrong with “drill baby drill” is it was an end point with
    those folks, not a bridge (no pun intended).Agreed on how can anyone want more of what we’ve had?

    0
    #180034

    Matthew
    Participant

    WE have done a similar initiative here in the states. IF you would like, we can discuss off line.

    0
    #180037

    Unioun of Conjoined Scientists
    Member

    I never said or implied that was the extent of my solution.  Specific to the quote in question, authorizing domestic drilling is one of the few options that will reduce oil prices NOW.  As in immediately.  As in without waiting for an energy panacea to be developed.  Which in turn will immediately reduce the rate at which our money flows into the pockets of Middle Eastern (and South American) extremists.
    I’m all for developing ALL alternative energy sources.  My appreciation for nuclear is well chronicled.  But it’s naive to think that a petroleum-free solution is an adequate way to reduce the security threat.

    0
    #180038

    Kluttz
    Member

    I think you have an extremely narrow view of history.  If you’d like an education, I’d be more than happy to help you out. 

    0
    #180039

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Agreed

    0
    #180040

    Swaggerty
    Participant

    That would be great, Matthew. My email id is [email protected]
    George

    0
    #180045

    Taylor
    Participant

    Gary Cone, UofCS
    I dont understand why this is a political conversation. If one thing the last Eight years has taught us is that Democratic Law Makers under a Republican Presidency is like oil and water. We are a nation at War and yet act like we’re not. We go about our daily lives like nothing is happening and doesn’t effect/affect us.
    There is so many things each and everyone us can do to conserve energy. The one thing that amazes me the most is how come Hydrogen (HHO) Generators are not being marketed at a record pace. I have a very small crude home made unit hooked up to a 94 jeep Cherokee that boost my gas milage up to over 40 mpg, and the sweet part is the emissions is water. Do a you tube search and see what avg joe is doing out there.
    Changing out light bulbs to high effeciency bulbs in every house hold would almost cut energy consumption by 10% for household energy use.
    As a nation we grew up in an era of plenty, and now that things have tightened up we want to bitch and complain and blame the government for all our problems. What we need to be doing is looking in the mirror and asking ourselves what can I do to help. JFK said it best: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” Well this phrase can be applied to anything, in life. But yet, most of us choose to do nothing and look up to the sky like some magic button is going to be pushed and a rainbow will appear and all will be well.
    Global Warming is real, it is happening. Are humans the cause of it?Science suggest no, but we are a catalyst helping it along. Whatever events took place millions of years ago to regain the balance, will most likely happen again. I pray to God, I’m not here when that happens.
    So, to that point, if capturing GHG, (as junk science as it is) is a way of quantifying reductions in energy savings and reducing the overall impact on mother earth, then why not? Its a number, not accurate, but a number, and if you keep reducing that number, then you are making changes that will not only save the company money but improve the quality of life for all.
    Just my opinion, I could be wrong, and most likely someone will tell me how.
     

    0
    #180049

    Chad,I thought you might find this interesting. I heard about it about two years ago, but it is still not available.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-481996/How-12inch-miracle-tube-halve-heating-bills.html

    0
    #180050

    Nolan
    Participant

    Tony, I understand your point of this issue having visibility. Therefore use the skills we have to validate their capability.
    However, I assure you there are significantly greater savings to be had from your normal operating processes than there are from turning off lights.

    0
    #180051

    GrayR
    Participant

    The problems with the energy industry is very much related to Six Sigma and variation.  What some would identify as a ‘reliable’ energy system is one that can easily handle variation in demand.  Oil, natural gas, nuclear (and electricity produced from each of these), and even coal, are easily varied inputs to match varying demand.  Solar and wind power, or some of the other non-traditional power sources, are less able to handle variation, unless someone can develop a way to store the energy. Like many systems, energy is designed to accomodate the variation, and there are costs associated with that — when the weather gets extremely cold or hot, people like to be able adjust the thermostat; and this wouldn’t happen easily with solar or wind.
    This brings up some interesting questions about how to address the energy situation — what are the root causes for demand variation, what are the normal and abnormal limits of variation, to what limits is the energy industry designed for now, can demand variation be reduced in some way, can non-traditional power sources be used to cover most of the (common cause?) variation in power usage, and hydrocarbon-based or nuclear power used to cover the extremes, should the industry be more integrated to develop  usable dual or even tri-energy systems (like hybrid cars) to handle varying usage patterns (rather than being the solar industry or the nuclear-power industry, etc.)?

    0
    #180052

    cheezer
    Participant

    What happens when we stop buying oil from the middle east? Many of those countries’ whole economies are based on the sale of natural resources to the west. Without that money you have a huge mass of people who are at the boiling point. Their governments will no longer have the funds to quell this angst, as they currently do, and it will spill over into a much larger conflict(s) than we currently see.
    Does the US get involved when this war occurs? Do we honor our treaty obligations to defend Israel? To maintain shipping lanes?
    See North Korea for an example.
    I’m much more scared of the threat to our planet when the west stops propping up the middle east than the threat we face currently.
     

    0
    #180053

    Nolan
    Participant

    Ziggy, one would think after your tour in graduate school you would have learned the difference between the word “their” and “there”. Perhaps you need to dust off those text books a bit.
    PS: Your position on the recent administration is opinion, not fact. Time will have to assess that.

    0
    #180055

    Kluttz
    Member

    As far as global warming goes, I’m sure that you’re familiar with control charts. 
    As far as “ask not what your country can do for you”, I don’t need a lecture on personal responsibility. I’m not asking the government to do anything aside from allowing private industry to meet the needs of consumers.  As is the case most of the time, many of our problems today (subprime mortgages, gas prices, executive compensation, Enron-accounting) can be traced directly back to governmental “fixes”.  I’d just like them to get out of the way and let the private sector address these problems.
    And don’t get me started on GHG nonsense.

    0
    #180056

    Nolan
    Participant

    Wow, powerful thoughts cheezer. Gotta contemplate that a while.

    0
    #180058

    Do the people of the Middle-East really benefit from oil revenue?I understand the main beneficiaries are a single family, who spend most of their time sailing around the Mediterranean on a white refrigerator.I might be wrong, so can someone educate me …

    0
    #180059

    MrMHead
    Participant

    China and other rising countries/economies will help “prop up” oil producers.
    Gasoline, desiel, and other fuels aren’t the only uses for oil.  I thought I heard something like only 50% of a barrel actually goes to energy – I couldn’t find the breakdown with a quick Google search.

    0
    #180064

    Nolan
    Participant

    Union, couldn’t agree with your last statement more.
    My dad used to say “I know that no politician is going to help me. I vote for the one I think will hurt me the least.”

    0
    #180069

    cheezer
    Participant

    Andy,
    I think it depends on the country. Some share enough with the populous to keep them from Revolution (I’d put Saudi Arabia in this group). Some share a lot (Kuwait). Others share very little with their citizens, but use the oil revenue to prop themselves up militarily so they could put down any uprising (Iran, even Egypt to a lesser extent), which for the time being keeps the (relative) peace.
    Either way, those leaders are screwed when the spout is shut off and there will then be major uprisings. There’s a reason almost all the sheiks/sultans/etc. keep homes in Western Europe.
    I’m all for energy independence, but you’d have to be naive to think that will keep us out of the middle east squabbles or reduce the threats to the west in any way. I think it’ll actually increase the danger level to the western countries. Or, maybe the danger is just being moved forward timewise and is inevitable anyhow.
     

    0
    #180075

    Tony Hayward
    Member

    Les – we are definitely on the same wave length – think how much we are reducing the carbon footprint automatically by doing all those process improvement / variation reduction projects. My point is if we need to use reduction in GHG and carbon footprints to keep the funds flowing to do the right things let just do it. Maybe those running companies are more enlightened in the US, but not so the the UK. It is a perpetual battle trying to stop the bullies and fairies from flying from one disjointed initiative to another.
    The response following the initial question on carbon footprint must surely be a record – and full of politics – whats happened to Six Sigma? Well we have suffered (and still are ) from Blair and now brown, Personally I’m not sure who / what is going to screw the planet up most quickly – GHG’s or politians / bankers.

    0
    #180077

    Nolan
    Participant

    LOL at first then began to cry…unfortunately you’re correct. A lot of incompetence out there. Oh well, until space travel is perfected we’re stuck here.

    0
    #180079

    Taylor
    Participant

    Andy that is very interesting indeed. I have seen a few different things out there, including some Australian scientist that have been able to generate steam at a Plus energy output.

    0
    #180083

    Kluttz
    Member

    Excellent.  I expect a healthy contribution to my re-election campaign

    0
    #180085

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    UoCS,
    I haven’t been on here in a couple days but it is good to see the conversation is becoming more value add. After reading this I am not sure where I am lining up on these issues.
    I am familiar with control charts.
    We have a customer in Canada’s Northwest territory that runs trucks over frozen lakes to supply their facility. There is no doubt it is warmer because it is apparent in the thickness of the ice. Is it warmer. I am pretty sure that is a safe bet. How much? how well have we measured data over the last century? The MSA on some of that old data makes the data a little questionable.
    There is the position that it is natural variation and there is also the story that says we don’t know much in terms of cause and effect relationship in weather. If you remember after Katrina and Rita the Houston papers were full of stories about how bad the next hurricane season would be. The following season we had maybe one storm that had any effect at all. One of the best seasons ever. There are plenty of books out there that argue the other way on Global warming but that doesn’t sell many papers and magazines.
    Check out T. Boone Pickens latest venture. Alternative energy from an oil guy and he has his own money in the game. Do we listen to guy like that or to an Al Gore who has a company that buys carbon credits and sells them to people who don’t want to put time and effort into reducing their carbon footprint?
    As far as the Bush administration it will be history that decides how it went but at this point the Republican Party has to understand that they were at the very least perceived as unresponsive to what the country wanted and there were a lot of people who lacked hope. If nothing else has been restored there is optimism. With a recession like this that small thing goes a long way.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #180086

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    You can count on my donation. I would like the ambassadorship to any island in the caribbean.

    0
    #180092

    Kluttz
    Member

    I have no doubt that some parts of the planet are warming.  But other parts of the planet are inaguably cooling.  Every person in this forum should be familiar with a normal distribution curve.  So arguing to the bottom quartile (if not outliers) does no service to the debate.  Even the IPCC (made up of more environmental lobbyists than scientists) stated that surface temperature change over the last 100 years was between +0.74C and +0.92C.  So the mean has shifted by less than a degree over 100 years. 
    Hence my statement about control charts.  We’re not talking about a change of 4 standard deviations.  We’re talking less than 1 degree celsius.  And that’s not even including the obvious questions about their measurement error. 
    We’re BB’s, MBB’s, statisticians and process improvement professionals.  If we worked in a factory and someone came to us and said we needed to spend a 100 grand to fix a process because the mean increased by 1% over the last week with no quantifiable customer impact, we’d laugh right in their face. 
    Look, I grew up in the Rockies.  I appreciate the environment as much as anyone.  And I’m more than willing to take practical measures to ensure it stays the way I remember it was as a kid.  But what I won’t do is be railroaded into extreme action by highly questionable data fragments. 
    As far as Pickens goes, I definitely appreciate what he’s trying to accomplish.  He takes an all the above approach, and I think thats the right way to go.  I don’t necessarily buy wind power as a legitimate full-fledged alternative.  It’s more of a niche solution and we should allocate our resources accordingly. 
    I started out my career in the energy field, so it’s near and dear to my heart.  That’s probably why I tend to get spun up a bit when the topic comes up
     

    0
    #180093

    Kluttz
    Member

    Do you speak Haitian?

    0
    #180099

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    UoCS,
    If you live in Amarillo wind power has to look good. It never stops and it is free. Do notice that he doesn’t have one of those windmills in his yard and he has a really big yard. If you look at the average income in tha panhandle and someone will give you about $20k a year to have that thing in your yard Pickens looks like a miracle.
    The Northwest territory may be warmer but it certainly isn’t warm.
    If I remeber correctly from my geology classes the north and south pole have swaped about 4 times. No sure why and I am not sure anyone does definitively. It would be interesting to see what we would blame it on if it happened this afternoon. The great part is instead of arguing if it was Peary or Cook who discovered the North pole we could also argue about which pole they discovered.
    Like I said we don’t seem to know as much about the environment as we think we do so cause and effect as explained by people who don’t understand something never seems to make any sense.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #180108

    Kluttz
    Member

    I’m tempted to question your definition of “free”. 
    Regarding wind power – you can make electricity by running wires through a potato, but that doesn’t mean that we should all be buying farmland in Idaho.  Just because the wind is blowing and the blades are turning, that doesn’t mean that the wind turbine is churning out net positive energy.  So although the wind “never stops” (debateable assertion) that doesn’t mean that wind is more efficient, more cost-affective or “greener” than other potential sources. 
    I fully agree with your assertion that we know less about the environment than we think we do.  I’m just arguing that it’s irresponsible to take action where we have no valid idea as to the repercussions.

    0
    #180113

    MrMHead
    Participant

    What is the “cost” of wind power?  You cannot create or destroy energy.  Projecting to large scale – what is the effect of removing all of this knetic energy from the wind/atmosphere and harnessing it with copper wires underground?  El Nino supposedly creates upper atmospheric winds that shear off the tops of storms forming on the African west coast, thereby reducing the frequency and intesity of hurricanes.
    Same rhetorical question can be asked about wave/tidal power.
    One theory of the magnetic poles is that they will slide 90d (not a 180 flip-flop) when the earth, sun, and solar system align with the center of the galaxy on 12-21-2012.
    I live in the great lakes region, so as the earth heats up and fresh water becomes a premium natural resource – I’ll be sitting pretty!
     

    0
    #180114

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    UoCS,
    I owned a ski shop in Pocatello. There wasn’t any global warming there (while I was there) which is a good thing when you own a ski shop.
    I only have a superficial knowledge of Pickens numbers but his plan seems to make sense. Will it replace fossil fuel? No. Is it a part of the puzzle.
    I am not sure I agree that we need to understand the repercussions before we take action. That requires perfect knowledge and that process is to slow if not impossible. We do need to have the courage to pull the plug on a bad decision and that is where we lack discipline.
    I think it was Harry Truman that said “I’ll make a decision. If it is wrong I’ll make another one.” (that close)
    Regards

    0
    #180116

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    MrMHead,
    Interesting comment on the wind shear. I never saw anything on television, newspapers or magazines about it but the oil companies that had drill rigs in the Gulf seemed to understand it pretty well. I would guess when you make your living by knowing the truth instead of selling sensationalism it makes a difference in the quality of the people you hire.
    It has been a while since I took a geology class but they had “proof” that there had been 3-4 complete swaps. Just think what it would cost to change all the street signs. Everything that read Noth would have to be changed to south and everything that read South would have to be changed to North. That doesn’t even take into account everybody who would end up in the wrong location. We would have to change the whole Christmas thing or else turn Santa into trasient labor.

    0
    #180117

    MrMHead
    Participant

    UCS
    I ran across a Wiki article on the environmental impacts of electricity generation.  The section on Wind Turbines mentions the land use, cost /energy to build, noise pollution, and dead birds – the other expenses of “Free”

    0
    #180120

    Kluttz
    Member

    “I am not sure I agree that we need to understand the repercussions before we take action.”  Mike Carnell: January 21, 2009

    Community Re-Investment Act
    Non-Aggression treaty between Molotov and Von Ribbentrop
    The assasination of Archduke Ferdinand
    The Missouri Compromise
    Tulip futures
    The mullet
    These were all seen as good ideas at the time.  I didn’t imply that we needed perfect knowledge or cosmic enlightenment before acting.  But we should expect data that can withstand even the most cursory of peer reviews before dropping billions if not trillions of tax revenues (current & future) on junk science solutions. 

    0
    #180121

    Nolan
    Participant

    Union, these all make sense – except the Mullet. What was wrong with that?

    0
    #180122

    Kluttz
    Member

    Les, I’m sure that youre one of the few people who can make it look good.
    All business up front, party in the rear.

    0
    #180125

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Due Diligence works for me. Then you go and check along the way.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #180126

    Taylor
    Participant

    One point about Wind Energy, is like most other alternative sources. It is only viable when Oil Cost are high. Like Ethanol it depends upon spread in order to be a profitable industry. Having lived in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico I can say the Wind Blows ALL the time (or at least more than 320 days a year which is how they do the studies). Another point to mention is the optimum wind needed to generate at full capacity is 8-10 mph. It doesn’t take much wind to turn those things. As for noise, technology has also caught up to the turbines as well. New blade styles make them almost completely silent. They have engineered a turn out much like a stabilizing wing on a jet, that makes them extremely quit. Turbines are expensive, but are only one peice of the puzzle. In places where turbines are in use whatever they generate means less Energy has to come from Coal or whatever source traditional power is being generated from controlable resources. So to say they are not useful is just plain mis informed. To say they are not viable is just plain mis informed. Each and every thing we do as “Alternative” has an impact, a positive impact, but it will always come with some cost. I also read in a post that land use was an issue. Not sure where that came from because the guys that own the land are either farming right up next to them or the plateau they are built on is not suitable for anything else.
    Local Cotton Gin in Lubbock Texas put up 6 smaller turbines last summer and now operate the Gin completely on Wind Power. Over transmission is sold back to Lubbock Public Power.
    Carnell LMAO

    0
    #180128

    Kluttz
    Member

    Show me where anybody said that wind turbines weren’t viable.  Then show me where anybody said that they weren’t useful. 
    8-10 mph for full capacity?  Really?  http://www.aweo.org/windmodels.html – that shows 26-34 mph for full capacity, with performance degrading “exponentially” as windspeed decreases.
    But again, nobody here is saying that wind turbines don’t have their place.  I’m just saying that there are far more effective alternatives.

    0
    #180129

    Kluttz
    Member

    Define “due diligence”. 
    Our efforts should be commensurate with the confidence we have in our data. 

    0
    #180134

    MrMHead
    Participant

    Chad – I mentioned land use, but meant it in a positive way.  The article I saw said that wind turbines can generate more Kwh per land unit than most other energy sources. It didn’t go into detail, but I imagine they are referring to the footprint of the turbine itself.  However, being the skeptic we all like to be, do they take into account storage and transmission?
    There’s been talk of putting up a wind farm in Lake Erie. . . .Would that be Zero land use?

    0
    #180151

    Frank Whittel
    Participant

    Claiming that the world is going to warm when the data shows it has cooled is as stupid as the utter stupidity of 3.4 dpmo.
    Perhaps the current cooling phase is 0.4 of an error in a million ?

    0
    #180164

    Kluttz
    Member

    Not to belabor the point, but my back-of-the-bar-napkin math shows that if the wind was blowing 20mph for 24 hours a day and 365 days per year for forty consecutive years, it would take approximately three thousand & three hundred average wind turbines to equal the energy output of the one nuclear power facility outside of Bay City, Texas.  Those 3,300 windmills (assuming a standard spacing of approx 0.25 miles apart) would fill an area of about 225 sq miles. 
    Just sayin’.

    0
    #180165

    Kluttz
    Member

    Sorry – math error.  Those 3,300 windmills would fill 825 sq miles (based on the federal requirement of no more than 1 wind turbine per 160 acres), just a shade smaller than the country of Luxembourg.

    0
    #180166

    Nolan
    Participant

    Union, I won’t challenge your assertion that nuclear may be better than wind turbine, not equipped nor motivated to do that, however, one wind turbine per 160 acres can’t be the present law. Drive through the pass at Desert Springs, CA and you will see them spaced about every 200-300 yards or so. Perhaps 200 or more per 160 acres.
    In that one locale, they are a bit of an object de art. Very unique and interesting; now if they were everywhere – that wouldn’t be the case. They would just be ugly.

    0
    #180167

    Taylor
    Participant

    Union
    Currently the state of Texas has Two Nuclear Power Stations, Commanche Peak and South Texas Project. Those two systems combined generate 4860 MW. Wind Turbines across the state generate 6297 MW (2007 actual generation). Texas also has an additional 2197 MW units under construction which will be like adding another Nuclear Power Plant.
    Total Wind Power Generation across the US is 21,017 MW with an additional 4000+MW units under construction. This equals about ~10 additional Nuclear Power Plants.
    A typical wind field in the south west region will have 80-110 units and most take up a space of less than 500 acres.
    I guess the question becomes, What would you rather have in your back yard, a wind mill or Nuclear Power Plant?
     

    0
    #180170

    Nolan
    Participant

    And we haven’t begun to assess the personnel requirements associated with each….

    0
    #180175

    Kluttz
    Member

    Nuclear power plant.  Without question.
    And a quick search shows that Texas wind CAPACITY was 6297 MW (not actual energy generation, as you stated).  Actual energy was less than 20% of that (1190 MW) which is less than half the energy produced by the one nuclear plant at South Texas.  So it seems you’re confusing CAPACITY with actual GENERATION. 
    http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Texas 
    The largest wind farm in Texas is more than 4 times bigger than the South Texas Project and generates a fraction of the energy.  Regarding turbine spacing, that facility has one windmill every 112 acres or so. 
    I’ll be more than happy to have this discussion all day long.  You can’t possibly make the argument that wind power is/was/could-ever-be comparable to nuclear. 
     

    0
    #180176

    Frank Whittel
    Participant

    I agree.  The truth should be obvious but half the population is below average intelligence.  64% of the population believe we have been visited by aliens (other than illegal immigrants) and half of them believe in alien abductions.
    No wonder people believe the utter nonsense of six sigma and global warming !!

    0
    #180177

    Kluttz
    Member

    By “personnel requirements”, do you mean “jobs”?
    Yeah, God forbid we have more of those.

    0
    #180178

    Kluttz
    Member

    200 turbines per 160 acres?  Really?
    “Located at San Gorgonio Pass just north of Palm Springs California, is one of the three largest wind farms in the world, with over 4000 wind turbines in a 70 square mile area.”
    http://www.polarinertia.com/march04/wind01.htm
    70 sq miles is almost 45,000 acres.  Thats one turbine per 11 acres. 
    Those 4,000 wind turbines produce about a fourth of the energy of the South Texas nuclear plant
     

    0
    #180179

    Nolan
    Participant

    So, Union, you’re saying let’s create jobs just to have jobs – even if there is a means of yielding the same product with fewer jobs? Boy, that’s progress.

    0
    #180180

    Nolan
    Participant

    Union, I wasn’t arguing wind vs nuclear – I haven’t commented on that issue at all. I was saying I’ve seen far more wind turbine density than 1 per 160 acres – which you stated is federal law.
    Re: Palm Springs; your figures are likely correct – not going to dispute that. However that facility is spread out over a mountainous area; not the most efficient density. Portions of it are more in line with my first statement. Here’s a link to the Google Map of the area. You can see the turbines are located significantly closer than you have been stating.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&q=bling&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il
    Stay on point dude – easy to argue by changing topics.

    0
    #180181

    Nolan
    Participant

    Frank, please help me understand why a defined, rigorous approach to the use of data to solve problems is “utter nonsense”. Are you suggesting alternatives means are more effective – like guessing or trial & error or what?

    0
    #180182

    Lone Star
    Participant

    Who needs wind.So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?
    1. N ASA is just south of Houston , Texas . We will control the space industry.2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States .3. Defense Industry–we have over 65% of it. The term “Don’t mess with Texas ,” will take on a whole new meaning.4. Oil – we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee, we don’t know. Why not ask Obama?5. Natural Gas – again we have all we need and it’s too bad about those Northern States. John Kerry and Al Gore will have to figure out a way to keep them warm….

    6. Computer Industry – we lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications equipment -small companies like Texas
    Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor,Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Miconductor,Dallas Semiconductor, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and
    on.!7. Medical Care – We have the research centers for cancer research the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well as other large health centers. The Houston Medical Center alone
    employees over 65,000 people.

    8. We have enough colleges to keep us getting smarter: University of Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Rice, SMU, University
    of Dallas , University of Houston , Baylor, UNT ( University of North Texas ), Texas Women’s University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South
    anyway.

    9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force, and it isn’t restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in Texas , it’s a Right to Work State and, therefore, it’s every man and women for themselves. We just go out and get the job done. And if we don’t like the way one company operates, we get a job somewhere else.10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics, and insurance industries, etc. !11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard,the Texas Air National Guard, and several military bases. We don’t have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one.If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department
    of Public Safety and ask them to send over the Texas Rangers.12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let’s not forgetseafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don’t need any food.13. Three of the ten largest cities in the United States , and twenty-three of the 100 largest cities in the United States , are located in Texas . And Texas also has more land than California , New York, New Jersey , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Massachusetts , Maryland , RhodeIsland and Vermont combined.

    14. Trade: Three of the ten largest ports in the United States are located in Texas

    15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don’t need to. You see, nothing rusts in Texas , so our vehicles stay beautiful and run well for decades.

    This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn’t a thing out there that we need and don’t have.Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama:

    Since you won’t have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes

    You won’t have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off satellite communications.You won’t have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr.Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long as you survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from
    Global Warming.

    0
    #180183

    Kluttz
    Member

    I tried to make it as clear as possible that we’re not talking about making the same product (at least in terms of quantity & reliability). 
     

    0
    #180184

    Kluttz
    Member

    GE (who manufactures a big chunk of the turbines there) recommends that turbines be spaced 5-10 rotor diameters apart.  So assuming a medium-sized turbine (1.5MW) that would be between a quarter and a half mile apart.  If they’re closer together, that means they have a smaller rotor diameter and therefore have a smaller rated capacity (more turbines required to make the same amount of energy).  The 160 acres is a F & W dept requirement for larger turbines.  But even with smaller turbines, you can still do the math.  If you say thay you have 200 of them on a 160 acre plot, than they not individually powerful enough to get a moped across the street.

    0
    #180185

    Kev
    Participant

    Lone Star – so what’s the down side of not living in the state of Texas??

    0
    #180186

    Kluttz
    Member

    There’s only one downside to living IN Texas.
     
     
    Texans.

    0
    #180187

    Frank Whittel
    Participant

    Les,
    Sounds like you are a true believer in the 3.4 rubbish ? 
    Do you know where it comes from ? Errors in the height of stacks of disks !!! Incredible but true … do some research.
    Any other fools here ?

    0
    #180188

    Nolan
    Participant

    Nope Frank – 3.4 means nothing to me. Read my post again because you totally missed the point the first time you read it. What I said is pretty clear.

    0
    #180195

    Kluttz
    Member

    Funny you should ask, Frank, but I’m a fool as well.  Complete idiot, in fact.

    0
    #180197

    MrMHead
    Participant

    Lone Star,
    Is your “Republic” going to move the other secessionist state next to yours?   You can call it Texaska, and Ms Palin can be your Queen!

    0
    #180213

    Texans Are Dumb
    Member

    Aren’t you the same state that 25% of you think Obama is a Moslem?Doesn’t speak well for your intelligence. Neither does your post.

    0
    #180214

    Nolan
    Participant

    I’m not from Texas nor do I necessarily buy everything the Texas guy listed.
    HOWEVER, if you’re going to knock somone’s intelligence then: 1) spell “Muslim” correctly, 2) use correct grammar – “…25% of the population believes Obama to be….”, 3) perhaps the poster is not one of the 25% in which case the fact that the other 25% of the population believe Obama to be Muslim doesn’t say anything about the poster’s intelligence and 4) because you disagree with the position stated by the poster does not say a thing about his/her intelligence…you two just disagree (there well may have been a number of things Einstien and I disagreed about however that speaks not one word to the intelligence of either of us).
    In fact, Texans Are Dumb, I believe you’ve accomplished just the opposite of your intent.

    0
Viewing 82 posts - 1 through 82 (of 82 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.