Avoided pollution

[powerbuoy]

I was recently asked how many pounds of greenhouse gases a typical 1KW wind turbine helps avoiding during the course of a year? Does anybody have some statistics on small wind impacts on the environment?

Powerbuoy

[willib]

I don't know the answer to your question, but you're from my area ,,,

check this out

nj is willing to pay $5.00 / watt for a system less than 10kw in size..

i havnt figured what it all means to me yet , like is that a one time payment?

or yearly?

and what if you make it yourself? will they still pay by rated output?

http://www.njcep.com/html/2_incent.html

i found this while paroosing a google ad, thanks dan!

[dinges]

Reduction in greenhouse gases? It depends on what type of energy-source it replaces.

If you're comparing it to a nuclear power plant, switching to windpower will not reduce greenhouse gases.

Is it coal? 'brown' coal? Gas? Oil? etc. Or are you looking for a weighted average, i.e. in the USA say, 50% is generated by nukes, 25% by gas, 25% by oil (purely hypothetical figures), and you want to compare your reduction to this average energysource? Or do you want it for your specific, local situation?

BTW, I have figures for none of these at hand, hope others do. But it does depend on what you will compare it to.

Peter.

[powerbuoy]

Thanks for the link, ... I trust they will give you $5.00 per Watt, but only up to 30% of the installation value.

[RP]

I found this from http://www.energymatch.com/features/article.asp?articleid=32

Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring odorless gas that is produced during combustion (fire): 1.5 pounds are emitted for every kilowatt-hour of electricity used.

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless chemical that is extremely irritating to respiratory systems: 0.008 pounds are emitted for every kilowatt-hour of electricity used.

Nitrous oxide is emitted into the air when energy is generated or used and it contributes to warming of the Earth's atmosphere: 0.005 pounds are emitted for every kilowatt-hour of electricity used.

[Nando]

My friend in England is paid around 0.04 to 0.05 Euros per KWH by a French entity and still he can use the energy as he wants -- he gets paid for CO2 limits.

This is an enterprise that should be looked by all you guys that use hydro, solar and or wind mill power.

Nando

[terry5732]

The ridiculous "pounds of CO2" figures always fail to mention that 2/3 of CO2 is oxygen. All the carbon and all the oxygen were atmospheric at some time before. If the atmosphere had a few percent more available oxygen, we wouldn't be able to keep anything combustable from igniting on it's own. There is lots of O2 locked in iron ore and silicon dioxide. If we smelted ore to iron without trapping it on carbon we would all FRY. This greenhouse gas hype is BS. CO2 is a heavy dense molecule and is very scarce at any elevation. Chloro-fluorocarbons are heavier yet and will NEVER reach the upper atmosphere (ozone layer). The "scientific community" has much to gain from saying the sky is falling. Like Federal money - their livelyhood. I don't recall an academic scientist discovering anything of value. The REAL , discovering scientists all work in the private sector and aren't clammering about imminent doom. What happened to all the academic scientists predictions of the coming ice-age that was so prevalent in the '70s and '80s? Apparently there was no grant money in it?

I'm still freezin

[RP]

"CO2 is a heavy dense molecule and is very scarce at any elevation. Chloro-fluorocarbons are heavier yet and will NEVER reach the upper atmosphere (ozone layer)."

Uhh, salt is 25% more dense than water.  Does than mean the top of the ocean is fresh water?

[oztules]

RP,

I'm not sure that comparing the bonding between the NaCl and H2O (dative covalent bonding using lone pairs on the water molecules) and a simple gas mixture is comparatively relevant here...... sorta apples and oranges

Dative covalent bonding in this instance is almost as powerful as the covalent bonding of the Sodium and Chloride in the salt , and the Hydrogen and  Oxygen in the water of the original chemicals and exhibits as a new substance from what was original in its components....eg NaCl is electrically non-conductive.. H2O is electrically non-conductive, .....when mixed, the resultant brine is conductive, and as such exhibits new properties not present in the original compounds.... The freezing point of the brine is reduced dramatically from that of water, etc. etc.

The CO2/O2 is only a mixture, and behaves as such.

It is because of this dative covalent bonding, that seawater is uniformly mixed (for most practical purposes), and does not tend to seperate out, but behaves as a new compound.... nothing to do with density of the component parts.... salt not able to mix chemically with the water sinks to the bottom... eg. block of salt in a plastic bag etc.

........oztules

[dinges]

Agree partly with the scare thing you point to. But the arguments are completely wrong, just as the chemistry.

CN, cyanide, consists of innocent carbon and innocent nitrogen. Both are in high quantity in our environment, none of them dangerous by themselves. Combine and you get deadly cyanide.

Same with that 2/3 oxygen in CO2.

I was reading recently a book from '83. In it they went into great detail how, by 2000 (not too soon to be dangerous, far away enough for any wrong comment to be forgotten by then) we would end up in a new ice age.

Scientific advance has now brought us to the opposite conclusion. Which may very well be true. But can be wrong as well.

As far as greenhouse gases goes. It's a way to scare people and earn money, IMO. Our modern day doomsday prophets, I guess.

Besides, greenhouse gas emissions will decline by themselves, as fossile fuels become more scarce. The rise in temperature may very well be real. But I tend to take

Just like when people tell me that due to the temperature rise the sea level will rise, because the polar-regions would melt. Nonsense. 99% or so of the rise will be caused by the thermal expansion of the water in the oceans. It's just not as graphic and dramatic way of explaining than melting icecaps.

Just like you see very little campaigns for the prevention of mosquitoes or scorpion (without a doubt, there is one type of scorpions or spiders in the world that is on the brink of extinction). Cute & cuddly (but oh so deadly) panda's seem to work much better for the majority of people.

Sorry for the rant. I guess that as long as the CO2 scare continues and rebates will be offered for its reduction, it would be economically sensible to look into the revenues from it. Which is the point of the original poster, I think.

Peter.

[wdyasq]

Gee Peter,

I'm confused now.... should I buy wool or cotton undies for the next season?

I too remember when "the new ice age" was comming..... and several other "the sky is falling" - events.  So far, the only thing that has happend is inflation of the costs of living.

Maybe I need to invest in a few politicians....

Ron

[dinges]

You should buy both. And you should buy them from me. ($$ flashing in Peter's eyes)

Belts and braces, remember

As to your 'need to invest in politicians' and your remark on inflation, the question popped up in my mind of the present cost of ammunition Or maybe by 'investing' you meant bribing/greasing? 'Honestly, judge, I wasn't bribing mr. Politico, I was investing in him. It's a purely economic thing. Could I invest some in you too, mr. Judge?'

To be honest, I wasn't too worried about those environmental problems, considering that 6-6-2006 was dooming ahead. I was preparing myself for Armageddon. It is postponed, till further notice.

Human stupidity... Where would we be without it.

[oztules]

It's difficult to find a period in human history where simple facts can be so utterly and deliberatly confused by a populace with real science at their fingertips, as is the case now.

Never in human endeavour has there been such a wealth of easy to procure information, by such an "educated populace" (so we claim anyway) and reach so obviously stupid conclusions as we have now.

I guess it's a tribute ecoreligion and media manipulation and mass mental laziness that good people can be led so far astray as to believe in criminally bad science.

Ron, the woollen ones, we have sheep on the island here.

the best Baaahh none.

...........oztules

[paradigmdesign]

Well, it depends on what you figure in..  If you figure in the green house gasses required to make and transport the steel, and other materials for the tower and the nacell, I think you still end up in the hole.

i.e. 4/5th of the pilloution that a car creates is in the manufacturing process, not the usage of gasoline, and there is alot more steel in a turbine tower than in a car.

[Gary D]

As a layman, I'd say 0 reductions. The power companies need to keep a reserve for instant usage or brownout/blackout will occur. Have you EVER heard of a single power plant dropping their output due to less demand? It WOULD be in the  news! We in the U.S. alone are adding (building) over 1 million new homes a year, plus the stores/restaurants to support them. Power companies are adding new plants to accomodate this. If we had stagnent usage this would make a difference, however we don't. We are power hogs, and that will continue as long as when you turn on a light switch, or flip on an A/C unit it starts. If you are grid tyed, the fact that you use less due to a separate system doesn't allow the power company to drop your 200 amp service and replace it with a 100 amp unit. They need to plan for you to use your normal, and any excess you MIGHT need... Just my opinion, I'll probably get fried for it! :- /  Gary D.

[terry5732]

Cyanides' deadliness is overrated too.

The global flooding is another item where just a little thought will obviate the preposterousness of it. The MASSIVE ice of the antarctic is IN THE SEA. The whole center is an arid desert. Ice is bigger than even warm water - hence shrinkage if melted. What about the huge amounts of ice in Greenland?!! Um, Greenland itself is tiny. That map of yours that shows it as giant is deliberately misrepresenting it to make a round world flat. You did know the Earth was round nowadays didn't you? So when you take 1000 square miles of 5000 foot thick ice, melt it , and spread it over (rough calc) 50,240,000 square miles of earth AND atmosphere (yes Virginia warm air holds more moisture) you're impact is almost imperceptable.

I'm still freezin

Forecast high for tomorrow June 8th is 66

Go figger

[Jon Miller]

Doing anything takes energy, as a genrall rule when you convert energy there is all ways polution.  Where i live the sun comes up in the East the sun goes down in the West it willl do that tomrow and evry day after that.  You have to spend money to make money, the same is true with energy productoin (adaption) you have to spend energy to make energy.  The grid is good at producing (again adapting) energy in an electrical form at an efficent rate when compaired to every one making/buying a wind turbine.  Thats why it is there!  As a reult if you want to produce less CO2 then use less energy simple!  Or use more energy, plant more trees and recyle more items, maybe next time you at work or in my case school and you see a room full of PC's maybe 20 odd, turn them off.  Save the planet one pc at a time. Just my thinking.

How about taking of the silly football flags on cars that seem the must thing at the moment, i hate to think how much fuel is being wasted on showing the fact you know which country you live in.  

To your question Powerbuoy I think if you where to use new parts to make a wind turbine then its very unlikly to reduce more CO2 then it took to make it within its life time, again use recycled metiral and i think it will more then save the CO2 it took to make it, also towers cn be made out of plastic, plastic is efficent and use very low energy to produce.  

[powerbuoy]

MMMmmmmhhh ... what did I start? This discussion did evolve into global issues ... I guess one has to figure out if a wind turbine would run 1KW for 1h, how much would be burned up/polluted by using the equivalent in gas, coal  and so on. I dug some more after the first replies came in and found some figures.

Emissions/ Greenhouse gases avoided per Watt/h               

                Gas (lb)    Coal (lb)    Oil (lb)

Carbon Dioxide        0.001135    0.002249    0.001672

Sulfur Dioxide        0.0000001    0.000013    0.000012

Nitrogen Oxides        0.0000017    0.000006    0.000004

Figures taken from: http://www.rewhc.org/wind/windemissions.shtml               

Figures were given for 5MWh and calculated to Watt hours

This comes from "Ratheons Employees Wildlife Habitat Commitee" :-))) I never would have figured that Ratheon could be concerned about the environment ...

Powerbuoy           

[RP]

I know, I know.  ;-)  

I guess the "heavy gasses can't rise in the atmosphere" thing just triggered me.

[elvin1949]

BORED

[elvin1949]

Sea level ain't going to rise.

 Damn thought i was going to have

some ocean front property for sale.

elvin

[electrondady1]

powerbouy, if i am reading your graph correctly it is saying that in the case of coal, to create 1 watt hr (or one killowatt hr ?)  .oo2 lbs of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere?

 i'd also like to make a comment on the misinformation/ignorance in regards to climate change put forward as a result of your question, i urge anyone concerned with global warming to simply do an on line search search on the very real amd measurable effects  on both ice caps  

[dinges]

To the original poster: I think you should have mentioned what you want to do with the information. That way we could see what kind of figures you need.

If you 'ask for figures' you WILL get them. Whether they're meaningful for your application is another question.

Basically what you are doing is a cost-calculation, but instead of using money you use CO2. So, you would need to know how much CO2 is 'invested' in your genny, what the expected lifetime is (for depreciaten of CO2), how many kWhr it will generate in its lifetime, AND what kind of energy source it will replace (oil, gas, nukes,...) That way you could compare it in 'profit' terms, i.e. savings in CO2. All this depends on a lot of assumptions (like lifetime of your genny). Also, you would have to take into account the amount of CO2 that gets produced maintaining the genny.

Do you take into account the tower as well? The copper wiring, the batteries, inverter (if present), etc.etc.

It all depends on what you want to use the numbers for!

This is definitely NOT an easy question. Economics never is, BTW, despite common perception.

That is, if you want to do it properly. If you just want some quick numbers on CO2 reduction (i.e., taking only into account the 'variable costs', to compare it with economics again) then things become much easier.

As to the other reply on the measurable effects of climate change: I don't doubt whether the climate is changing. I strongly doubt whether it's caused by humans. I don't intend to run around, screaming 'Mea culpa' when it's not my fault. Doomsday prophets like to.

Peter (who happens to be an economist...)

[terry5732]

Yes, warming is real. No one has been able to ice shate on the Thames river for over 200 years. And the mile thick ice sheet over Minnesota is GONE! It's a pretty great leap to assume it's from humans combusting naturally occuring substances. Did the rover heat up Mars? I don't recall it burning fuel. The Earth has never had a stable, fixed temperature. The retreat of glaciers in all areas of the planet has been documented since before the industrial revolution.

Going to put my long Johns on

[Gary D]

Powerbuoy, getting back to how much co2 a 1 kw unit will offset in a year(the original question to you), it definately depends on the average windspeed in your area. If you are in a class 1 wind zone, the machine will produce much less than in a class 3 wind area per year. On top of that is what other posters said about the power it is replacing. So you can use the 5 megawatt figures for one hour, figuring 1,000 kwh is 1 megawatt hour.... how many megawatt hours will you produce in a year? The Raleigh curve might help in your calculations. I'm definately for homebrewed/re power, just got on a rant on the political garbage going on when action is warranted....   Have fun calculating.... :-D Gary D.

[TomW]

Terry;

Maybe you should consider that this bubble of good weather suitable for humans to survive more or less globally is merely a tick on the geological clock.

The earth has seldom been very stable in climate.

One major volcano erupting dumps more crap into the atmosphere in one go than humans have since they figured out fire.

What we do is not the only thing that influences things although I think we definitely are having a negative impact which happens to be miniscule compared to natural phenomenon.

The earth has survived many catastrophic events and humans are just a minor one. This rock may cease to support human life but it will continue on its course quite happily without us. Silly humans seem to think it all about "us".

The Sky is Falling!

T

[TomW]

Maybe you should consider that this...



Should read "Maybe people should consider that this ..."

T

[Stonebrain]

Hi,

There are maybe 1 billion people in the oil burning

civilisations Europe and America.The other 5 billions or more

habitants want to do like them and they're right.

But it's impossible.

Better look for reasons to reduce consumption.Respect

for nature is always a good reason.

If not,price will be.

And maybe the planet screwed up

Cheers,

stonebrain

[fungus]

Although have you thought of the energy going into making a 5kw petrol(gasoline) generator? It's probably about the same as the energy going into a wind generator but it keeps on dumping more into the atmosphere after it's made.

[powerbuoy]

that was my understanding ....

[finnsawyer]

The global warmists/alarmists have decided to have it both ways.  Global warming will continue with its bad effects until it sets off a new ice age.  Neat.  No matter what happens, they're right.  Those who study the Earth's history say that it has had a series of ice ages lasting on average 100,000 years followed by periods of warm up averaging 10,500 years in recent geologic times.  What this means is that we are on the tail end of the warm up since the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.  We are due for a new ice age.  Well, it happens that not very long ago there occurred what was called the little ice age.  Fortunately, it ended about a hundred years ago.  (Yes Virginia, it got warmer in Europe and the U. S. after several hundred years of colder than normal weather).  Was this little ice age a precursor of what was soon to come, and has our introduction of greenhouse gasses forestalled the big event?  Or does it just not matter?  I tend to the latter view.  I don't think our measly human activity amounts to anything significant.