Paulkenyon’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CO2 as the primary climate driver

  A book you folks will enjoy is "A Primer on CO2 and Climate," second edition by Howard C. Hayden.
     My question to you and my question to Mr. Hayden stems from several studies available on line regarding the IR absorption spectrum of CO2. It would appear that CO2 now absorbs "to extinction" the energy in it's 4 principal absorption wavelengths, 2,5,7 and 15 microns. It does so in our atmosphere from a few 10's of meters to three kilometers...or so I read. What does this mean? The example given is of a window shade that blocks 90% of incoming light. Doubling the shade (adding one in this case) does not double the amount of light blocked. The new shade will block 90% of the remaining 10% or 9%. Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then, would, from this source anyway, not increase the energy absorbed at those wavelengths much more and be responsible for only a small increase in global temperatures in addition to the 33 degrees attributed to GHG's. In one article, it is calculated to be an increase of about 1.76 degrees C...max. The globe is warming. No doubt about that. The question remains, then, as to the cause. Milankovitch Cycles are suggested as this cause among other factors (increase in other forms of radiation...I'm not clear on the physics behind that...sorry.) If CO2 is still the primary climate change mover, however, what other physics of that molecule explains its effect?
  Thanks
  Paul

  Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.

  On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 1 year, 5 months ago 78 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  correction of investment calculation

  Opps, You can see I'm not in the habit of handling large sums of money. In my calculation of how much $12,000 would earn in 88 years invested at 5% I goofed. It would amount, in the end, to about $770,000.00 so my neighbor is making out way better than I ever thought. Remind me to invest $12K at 5% for 88 years at the beginning of my next life so I have a retirement to lookforward to.
  Best,
  Paul

  Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.

  On The Lieberman-Warner bill is not strong enough to do the job posted 2 years ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  small turbine payback + Europe and CO2

  
     Please note that the 1.8 kW turbine sited is, even at the cheap price of $12,000 not "affordable" and will not serve as an investment in today's economy. Far from it.
     I consult to the small wind industry and have a 1.8 kW turbine at my home in the Champlain Valley. I talk truth about small wind turbines to real people who live in real places in Vermont. A 1.8 kW turbine provides, perhaps, 1200 kW-hrs of energy per year in Vermont's champlain Valley, a not unrealistic average wind speed for where people tend to live. At 11.4 cents per kW-hr (Vermont price)that adds up to $136.80 a year for a grand "pay-back" of the $12,000.00 in about 88 years. Meanwhile, my neighbor who invested his $12,000.00 in bonds at 5% will have earned $73,333.33. But my turbine will not last 88 years unless I resort to extraordinary methods (termed regular maintenance)...which, you guessed it, cost money. See where this is going? Most people do not live where the wind blows fast enough to compete with a modest alternative investment made with the same money.
     On top of that, at the end of the turbine life, often less than 10 years but reported to be between 15 and 25 years, the turbine is trash and the investment's value is zero, or nearly so: scrap value. At the end of that term my neighbor will still have his initial investment back.
     We install small turbines not for the investment (as such), but for love. And that's good enough for a number of folks. Let's not disparage it. But let's also get real about small wind turbines (and let's get real about the giants, too, they will not produce enough power to make their visual and environmental impact worth the while, period.)
     I advise folks interested in small wind for "the investment" to take the money they were going to put into the turbine...or PV array...and invest it in the stock market. The average return (if you can stomach the up and down ride...you could lose it but you were going to lose the 12 grand for sure buying a turbine) is around 9%. Take the income from that investment and put it into tightening up the house: new windows and doors and insulate, insulate, insulate. In a short time you will have lowered the amount of heat your home uses dramatically, directly impacted global warming, US hegemony, the pillage of foreign oil, AND, for these ill gotten gains (you'd have to feel guilty for doing so well for so little) you get a much more comfortable house. Now, what's so hard about this?
     It will be useful to note that this year, again, Europe, despite it's huge penetration of giant wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, produce more CO2 than they ever have. Why is that? Something's not working about this renewables idea. Denmark, it is said, produces not 20% but 40% of it's power from wind yet Denmark produced just slghtly less CO2 this year than last and has advanced to become the 7th largest recipient of US exported coal. Because the wind over Denmark is so mismatched to their demand, 84% of their wind generated power is exported to their grid partners, mostly to Germany, Sweden and Norway, where it displaces not CO2 produced electricity, but hydro produced electricity, another clean source. It all adds up to a disappointing mess that Europeans are going to have to live with for a long, long time.
     Indeed, people are getting rich over this boondoggle. Note Please that "swindle" has "wind" in the middle if it. Sorry to trash a darling but there it is.
     Let's get real about addressing global warming. Forget the renewables with their outsized, environmentally destructive footprints and concentrate on conservation (we use too much of everything (except common sense) and we're too fat, let's admit it) and efficiency (which, today, can offer us far more "energy" than anyone has realized)and put some serious money (Iraq war amounts...a trillion dollars would be appropriate but we could settle on $200 Billion as evidence of a good faith start in this effort) into safe and secure advanced nuclear power. There are even rumors that we could use our (VT Yankee) stockpile of nuclear waste reprocessed...as they are in Europe. Fusion power, would, of course, be a marvelous outcome of this investment in our energy future. Let's get on with it. Seriously.
  Best,
  Paul Kenyon
  Cumulus Engineering, LLC
  

  Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.

  On The Lieberman-Warner bill is not strong enough to do the job posted 2 years ago 16 Responses