Let's watch this test case

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

After I write each rebuttal, I swear it'll be my last :) but you're
so darn good at baiting me :)

> I haven't seen that sort of comment on
> this Danish wind energy site:
> http://www.windpower.dk/
> http://www.windpower.org/en/faqs.htm

This illustrates my point about incestuous amplification. How
convenient that a windpower advocacy group is *pro windpower.*

The criticism cited about Denmark dealt with the limitations
inherent with wind implementation. There is nothing in the comment
that says the problems occured 20 years ago, thus your typical
response that the critics are always looking at old data doesn't cut
it. Look to the substance of the criticism not the group leveling
it. Much of what your advocacy groups say DOES have merit but they
also ignore inconvenient facts.

> Still, for constrast, consider:
> http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/test.html
> "I am one very happy owner of your HT 2 wind turbine.

How convenient that a wind turbine owner is happy with his decision.
He doesn't talk about how it impacts his bank balance or how people
may feel when every house in their neigborhood has a turbine. Right
now people HATE to have high power transmission towers encroaching
on their back yard, so how can you expect the same reaction of
marveling at the wonder and beauty of a turbine when they litter the
sight lines for every homeowner.

How about the issue of restrictive covenants attached to properties.
My associate has these on his home. He must even use a specially
designed lawn sign if he wants to sell his home - not the realtor
supplied one. He'd be lynched if he put up a turbine, then'd they'd
sue his estate :)

As has already been pointed out to you, most of you wind/solar
advocates seem to be property owners with sufficient space to
implement your "million points of light" dream. Tell me this: once
you completely do away with grid distribution, how will the Empire
State Building get power? A huge wind turbine on its roof? Clad the
whole building in solar shingles? What happens when there is a wind
storm and the shingles fly off everywhere? How do the concrete
canyon shadows affect the efficacy of the solar shingles? Will New
York buildings be topped with 1,000 foot towers, with a turbine at
every 50 feet, in order to generate power for the *density* of the
users within the building?

> Also, there are inherently safer wind generators which are
> vertical and helical not horizontal and propeller-like, see for
> example:
> http://www.windside.com/painik/etusivu.htm
> http://www.windside.com/frames.htm

Wonder of wonders. The manufacturer of a generator is touting their
product. Who would have thought? Why this sounds like the best thing
since sliced bread - gee reading this makes me want to buy one.
Hmmm, I wonder if they are a unbiased source?

> Wind generators have improved immensely over the past couple of
> decades, so it isn't reasonable for commentators (like one you
> referenced previously) to cite historical problems with wind
> systems to condemn the entire field when newer wind systems don't
> have the same issues.

Umm, they're not doing that. It sure seems to be a convenient
rhetorical tactic to dismiss critique on the basis of faulty data
even when the data is accurate.

> You continue to ignore the concept that an intermittent electrical
> source like PV or wind can be made constant using hydrogen storage
> as a load leveller. Please consider and accept that fact. Here is
> some expert opinion on it, from RMI's "Twenty Myths about
> Hydrogen". http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf

I gather from our past exchanges that appeals to economic issues
carry little weight with you but such are really the most cogent
argument that can be made. I concede your point that the process is
possible, and the systemic design is conceptually valid, but for the
ideal to become reality it must pass the litmus tests of economics,
efficiency and practicality. The sheer volume of platinum required
for your decentralized utopia is staggering. What will this do to
the supply/demand curves? I'd like to see you wave away the process
of supply and demand :)

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/applications/fuelcells.html

In the last 10 years, demand has exceeded supply in 7 of them. Where
will the catalyst for the fuel cell come from? Magic technology?

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/uploaded_files/market_data_charts/Pt%
2094%2003.pdf

> (ICI in Britain has long stored very large amounts of hydrogen in
> underground caverns at up to 50-bar pressure without difficulty;

Great. Wrap your mind around this question - where does that
hydrogen come from? Hint - think natural gas.

> The experts you cite on grid issues with wind/solar also seem to
> me to be trying to say renewables won't scale because the current
> most profitable approach to using them (peak shaving for the grid)
> has scaling issues. So, considering only grid issues you raise,
> according to this expert, Denmark can run entirely off of wind if
> they use intermediate Hydrogen storage.

Sure they could. Denmark could also solve its energy problems with
anti-matter power plants. Gee, this ignoring reality stuff is a
great way to rebut arguments.

Forget about where all the platinum for the fuel cells will come
from. Demand is already exceeding supply. Neglect the issue of where
the hydrogen will come from. Natural gas will only exacerbate the
environmental problems. Wish away the economic expense of
implementing all of those fuel cells.

Do away with the grid and let all of the city people move into the
suburbs or country and live like the other wind/solar advocates.
That'll work because there are recorded instances, although
anecdotal, that every parent's child is above average in
intelligence, beauty, and athletics. Hey, if every kid is above
average, then every city dweller can live like the
environmentalists, and nobody will complain about the overcrowding
or any other resultant issues.

> I think you are citing experts who are simply basing their
> analysis on the wrong approach.

You mean like reality?

> But as you can see from the above expert, there are other
> approaches involving storing energy temporarily which resolve this
> issue.

The huge difference in the comparison you've drawn is that O'Neill,
Glaser, Criswell, et. al submit their work to refereed forums where
it is debated and it withstands scrutiny. Your experts don't submit
their claims to the same process - your expert ignores all the
*reality* I detailed above with the implementation of fuel cell
batteries.

The environmental movement has a *HUGE* credibility problem and they
are more and more frequently preaching to themselves.

> Also, please note that SPSs could go offline for numerous reasons
> (repairs, preventive maintainence, computer failure, etc.) and so
> reserve capacity will need to be built into an SPS power delivery
> system anyway.

Have you ever heard of the computer concepts of parallel processing,
RAIDS, back-up systems, etc? If a klystron blows out on a 10 GW SPS,
I think that it can be replaced without shutting down the whole SPS.
Just like you can hot-swap a drive on a computer, you can implement
maintenance while the plant is operating. The SPS is not a
monolithic generating system. It is composed of many parallel
systems on a very large platform, be it a PV or solar thermal SPS
design.

> > No matter how efficient you make a PV cell, it won't work if the
> > sun doesn't shine. That is the limitation that no amount of
> > money will fix. You can try to argue that away by implementing
> > massive BATTERY schemes, but why bother when the sun shines 24
> > hours a day in orbit, and there is no atmospheric attenuation,
> > etc. Why continue to push for a energy policy that has inherent
> > limitations that no amount of money can alleviate?

> Again, see the expert comments above on Hydrogen storage.

Didn't read like an *expert* commentary to me. More like a false
prohet.

> Also see previous comments on SPSs needing to turn off at various
> times.

Your criticism was based on fallacious premises and reasoning.

> > Come on! You're conflating issues. The pollution caused by
> > manufacturing PV cells is what I documented. That's real and it
> > affects Earth's biosphere. SPS construction occurs outside of the
> > Earth's bioshpere and causes no pollution. There's no way to
> > mumbo-jumbo out of that fact! This is a complete system
> > analysis, and what the energy is used for after it is created by
> > PV/wind or SPS is immaterial to the analysis. PV/Wind is clearly
> > inferior to SPS in this regard.

> While I am willing to grant that PV production as done now may
> cause pollution, I am suggesting (with handwaving :-) that if the
> world relied entirely on just PV+Hydrogen the pollution involved
> by making PV cells would only be 1-10% of the total industrial
> pollution humans now produce (or would otherwise produce in the
> course of using less or more PV energy).

Look up the definition of the word "conflating." You're doing it
again. My point is that the manufacture of PV or wind turbines takes
energy from within the energy cycle of the Earth's biosphere. SPS is
constructed outside of this *system* and therefore is friendlier to
the Earth's biosphere.

You're conflating the issue by bringing in issues dealing with the
percentage of power used in PV manufacture compared to total world
industrial energy usage and the resultant pollution, etc. Totally
beside the point! Concede the point in favor of SPS and take your
conflating rationale and make another argument on a different basis
that can stand on its own internal logic.

> > Your whole argument on this point is complete nonsense from an
> > economic perspective.

> There are also many ways to look at economics, for example E.F.
> Schumacher's Buddhist economics.
> http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhisteconomics.html

I'll be the first to agree to that statement. I've studied Smith,
the Neo-Ricardians, the Marxist and Neo-Marxists, the Monetarists,
the Austrians, Veblen and the Institutionalists, Keynesian and the
Neo-Keynesians, and themeatic subjects of Game Theory, Business
Cycle Thoery, and Finance Theory, among other which don't come
immediately to mind, yet in all my years I've never seen any journal
articles on Buddhist Economic Theory. Can you provide more links on
this school of thought? Where is it taught?

Personally, I'm skeptical of holding Burma up as a role model of
economic progressivity. Look at how well Burma is doing on any
number of criteria other than the dreaded, and loaded, economic
perspective you criticize.

> Simply maximizing short term profit at the expense of everything
> else (society, workers, environment, children) by passing on as
> many external costs as possible to others and tilting the playing
> field in one's favor by manipulating the legal system and tax code
> through legalized campaign financing bribery is itself a cultish
> religion or addiction. See for example:
> "Confessions of a Recovering Economist"
> http://www.caw.ca/news/factsfromthefringe/issue65.asp

Phew! Where to start? Considering that your source is appealing to
the Canadian Auto Workers Union membership, let me frame my response
in terms of motivating labor. This fundamental issue was played out,
and was ideally contrasted, between the Capitalist and Communist
systems.

For an excellent analysis of this issue and others see:
"Reforming the Soviet Economy: Equality versus Efficiency." Ed. A
Hewett, The Brookings Institution, Washington, 1988, ISBN 0-8157-
3603-7

In a nutshell, by ignoring some *fundamental* economic truths, and
substituting wishful thinking or ideology in its stead you develop
an economic system that is built on a house of cards.

Imagine that you are working on a factory floor and all of the
workers are paid the same wage. You are deligent and show up on
time, work productively and help meet the production goals of your
State Enterprise. Your co-worker is consistently showing up to work
intoxicated, his work habits are sloppy, he causes assembly line
delays, and generally his presence is detrimental to the production
goals of the State Enterprise. Will he be fired? NO, he won't
because down at this fundamental level the goal of the economic
system is the equality of all workers, not the efficiency of their
participation in the State Enterprise. You as the productive worker
cannot be rewarded for your productivity. What happens to your
motivation for hard work after witnessing this system? If you
guessed that it diminishes, then you guessed correctly, for that is
exactly what happened in the Soviet Union.

From such a fundamental level, build the economic system into higher
and higher abstractions, such as central planning, command pricing,
etc and you'll have a system that develops towards rewarding
equality rather than efficiency. These two concepts are dichotomous.

The US took the other approach and rewarded efficiency at the
expense of equality and look at the results. Yes, the system can be
brutal and impart a lot of pain, but many would argue that it
provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

You can't have it both ways. Now that the writer of that article is
addressing union members, which we all know are not the strongest
advocates of capitalism, and many unions have strong sympathies for
socialism, communism, and in the past had ties to the Soviet Union,
doesn't surprise me.

I hardly think it serves as an adequate rebuttal to the many people
who have benefited from capitalism. I know that there are many
environmentalists who disdain the capitalist system, so too with the
Anti-Globalization advocates, the Anarchists, and other disaffected
groups, and if they are the audience that you're appealing to and
draw sustenance from, then the incestuous amplification I referred
to previously is segregating you and your cohort from the majority
of people and you're visions of Lovins' "million points of light"
decentralization scheme is going to be looked at, and already is, as
ideological driven, and impractical, from an efficiency and wealth
generating perspective, not to mention more ecologically devastating
than a SPS, or even a Fusion, approach.

> They may use the grid nowadays because it is cheap and
> available, but it is not fundamentally needed long term because of
> the possibility of storing energy locally using hydrogen etc. You
> just continue to dismiss this possibility out of hand without IMHO
> seriously contemplating it or rebutting it.

OK, let's assume that the grid is done away with. How will the
hydrogen be transported? Pipelines? Hmm, replace an electrical grid
to implement a misguided environmentalist energy policy centered on
solar/wind/hydrogen and now we need to magically create mountains of
platinum for the necessary fuel cell catalyst and then institute a
hydrogen pipeline grid. We're better off because?

How will the energy density demand of urban centers be met? If your
solar shingle example is used. A surface area of 100 m^2 will
provide power for a family. Now consider a 20 story building housing
20 families under the same roof area? There is no grid to bring them
power, and only one lucky family in the building can use the roof
for solar shingles, so I guess everyone will have to bid for the
power, and the dastardly Bourgeoisie family will live in comfort
while all of the Proletariat will suffer without electricity. OK, I
know I've gone too far with the last statement. Surely there will be
rationing instituted to insure that each family in the building gets
the same amount of electricity. 1/20th of what they really need.
This type of response worked really well after the Russian
Revolution where living space was divided equally, after all why did
the Bourgeoisie family need more living space than their Proletarian
neighbors? Different families sharing a spacious apartment was the
most equatable solution. Hmmm. I wonder how this vision of the
future will sell to Joe-SixPack and Helen-Middle Manager?

TangoMan