Wind Turbines

Windmills power generators or wind turbines are usable over a large area of the U.S. if the right type of mill and the right mounting is used. Areas that have a high average wind rate are the easiest though. An average wind speed of 12 MPH or higher insures good power. Wind turbines complement solar panel power because the turbine will often produce the most power on blustery days when the solar panels put out a little less. Many times the windmills will also produce in the dark when the solar panels are complete idle.

There are two basic types of wind turbines and several verities within those two categories. These are the Horizontal Axis (HAWT) and the Vertical Axis (VAWT).

Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines

The horizontal axis windmill is much more common. Examples include the Dutch irrigation windmills and the water pumping windmills commonly seen in the plains states in the central and southwest parts of the U.S. The horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) properly designed and sited is more efficient in generating power from the total cross section of air that flows through the space encompassed by the blade rotation. The trade off is complexity and expense of the supporting structure. The HAWT needs to be 35 feet above any trees, hills or other structures within a 100 foot radius. This can add quite a bit of cost to the initial installation. Also, the high tower can make maintenance more difficult. These windmills need precision balancing because of the high rotational speed. The blades cut through the air at a faster rate than the wind speed because of the twist in the blades. There is a lifting effect somewhat like an airplane wing provides. In this case the lift pushes the blades around in a circle. Another issue is the wind changes direction and the HAWt windmill has a facing direction. There is usually a tail that drags in the wind and causes the wind turbine to rotate left or right to where it makes best use of the available wind. This means there are actually two axles. One for the spinning blades and one for the orientation. Usually there is a concern that the windmill will turn too fast during high winds and some dampening must be provided to prevent the mill from excessive vibration and torque that could destroy it. This is remedied by a process called furling.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

Generally, the vertical axis wind turbine works by creating a drag on the wind flowing across the blades. The radial speed never exceeds the wind speed. This makes the VAWT quieter. Also the balance is a little less critical. This type of generator works by having higher drag in one rotational direction than in the other. It turns out the drag type of windmill peaks in efficiency well below the maximum wind speed. There is little concern of it spinning out of control. Also the VAWT can take advantage of wind from any horizontal direction. This means that even during turbulent winds power is still available. Several of these factors make the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine more practical for the home experimenter. Especially for the first one or two attempts. An easy type to build at home is based on a design by an inventor named Savonius. This type can be build from PVC pipe or discarded buckets or barrels. The circular material is cut in half forming two half circles. The ends of the half circle materials are then mounted between two disks forming the top and bottom. The two halves should be mounted with the open sides facing and offset so there is about 1/3 of the circle overlapping. This allows the air to flow into one curve and pass through the center and out the other curved side. This provides rotational push and increases efficiency compared to having no overlap. This arrangement also helps with the start up of the spin. Even better you can stack another set of pipes or buckets and one more disk to have two blade sets on a common axis. The second set should be mounted 90 degrees around from the first set. This allows the start up to occur in lower wind speeds.

Are we at the mercy of China?

It seems the proceedings are being held up at Copenhagen because China is refusing to allow third party verification of their CO2 emissions. Since China is one of the largest users of coal to generate electricity that makes me a little suspicious. If they are not cooperative the rest of the world will not be able to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Has Global Warming gone away?

Have you noticed the references to “Global Warming” have greatly reduced of late. Perhaps our arguments are starting to have some effect on the thinking public. One would be hard pressed to say that “Global Warming” is a threat with the cooling trend that has lasted now over ten years and is showing no sign of reversal in the near future. The most recent peak in temperature was 1998 - eleven years ago. So the great panic that our destruction is eminent because of the constant warming of the atmosphere is not a tenable argument. The CO2 levels have not decreased during the 11 year decline in temperature so this should lead to immediate doubt that the CO2 is the cause.

Admittedly, this is a fairly short period but one of the problems I have pointed out with the alarmists theories is the cherry picking of a relative brief time in global history and projection from that. Exploring further, we can go back to the heart of the industrial revolution and we find the temperature dropped for 35 years there too. This was during the period the industrial air pollution was at it’s highest. So the period of focus by the “Global Warming” alarmists - about 150 years has several periods comprising a large percentage of the total where the temperature is not following the CO2 levels.

The NASA probes on Mars have detected warming periods similar to those observed on earth. Obviously, there is no industrial pollution causing “Global Warming” on Mars.

The science indicates the source of heat - the sun - varies in the amount of heat that it supplies to the earth. This fact is conspicuously absent the in the alarmists “science”. There is no adjustment factor or allowance to subtract out the solar changes. If one looks at the sun cycles that are traceable with ice core samples there are cycles of near 800 years carrying the largest temperature swings. There are smaller sub cycles during these intervals that are 100 years and less. Looking at the 800 year cycles it is obvious that we are currently near a peak. The exact year could easily vary two or three decades because of the smaller cycles.

Rather than admitting that the theory of man made global warming is a mistake some will just change the argument. They will now say “Climate Change” not “Global Warming”. I think the fact that the term “Global Warming” is declining is evidence that the tide is turning away from the alarmists.

Let’s be true environmentalists and fight real pollution. Let’s find ways to reduce wasteful energy consumption. Let’s not waste time and money with useless carbon capture and “cap and trade” that does not reduce pollution but does increase waste, poverty and joblessness.

It is great to see Ford is getting on board well with higher MPG cars. The 2010 Fusion gets 41 MPG in the city. That’s not bad for a midsize car that can easily carry 5 people. It uses hybrid technology. There is electrical motor propulsion that is used at lower city driving speeds and then at highway speeds the gasoline motor takes over. The battery is also charged from the gasoline motor and there is no provision for plugging into home electrical power. So, sometime into your city drive the gasoline motor may come on to charge the battery. Ford provided a demonstration drive in the north eastern United States to demonstrate the effect of the new technology. They target driving over 1000 miles on a single tank of gasoline. I understand the tank holds about 17 U.S. gallons. The expert drivers drove the unmodified production Fusion for several days and ended up going over 1400 miles on that single tank of gasoline. That put them well over 80 MPG. Of course they used fuel saving techniques such as driving with the windows closed and not using heating or air conditioning. Still the point was well made.

I have generally purchased from Fords competitors (not GM or Chrysler, either) because of quality concerns but they seem to have overcome much of that problem. I have read there is a $1700 tax credit if you buy before October 2009.

It is good to see a U.S. based company in the lead again with some cars. I hope this will continues. We need to reduce the consumption of foreign oil and we need to put less pollution into the environment. This is in my view a good bridge technology to migrate to full electrical propulsion. I believe the plug in version will be available as soon as the battery technology for cars catches up.

Dihydrogen Oxide Worse than Carbon Dioxide?

In case you are curious, Dihydrogen Oxide is the chemical name for water. Even Mr. CO2 himself - Al Gore - testified before congress that the primary green house gas is water vapor. About 97% of green house gas is water vapor. Of the remaining 3% carbon dioxide is a substantial portion. The so called man made contribution makes up a single digit percentage of the CO2. Declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant is no more scientific than delcaring common water a polutant.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia



We are currently developing home and farm renewable energy alternatives. This will actually reduce polution. Any donation to this cause using the button below is most welcome.

How are we affected by CO2?

We are going down the path of CO2 output regulation. We want to penalize companies that produce CO2. This is done with the intent of improving the environment. Let's refer to the experts in weather science and see what is the role of CO2 in our environment.

“Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ’starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

Is CO2 a pollutant? What do the experts say?

“Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants’ photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned.” - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo




“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama



“Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants.” - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry

Global Warming by Human CO2 Production

Is Global Warming by CO2 as a green house gas a tenable theory. See what the founder of the Weather Channel says in an interview by Glenn Beck



Environmentalism is a great and honorable approach to living. But, we should follow the facts if it is the environment we are truly concerned about. We lose credibility by jumping on a popular culture bandwagon that is based on misplaced faith rather than the facts. We can in fact improve the environment by wasting less energy. If we rush headlong into socialism to prevent an impending catastrophe that doesn't exist we are wasting valuable time and energy that will not lead to improvement in the environment. We will also have fewer resources left to truly make improvements where they count. Moreover we not be able to make a good case for what truly needs to be addressed because we "cried wolf" inappropriately in the past.

True environmentalism is science not religion. We don't take marching orders from a religious like figure that will have no part in debating the basis of his theories. Scientific discovery is the best basis for determining the facts.

On this site we address environmental issues based on the facts. If there are issues in question we will proceed accordingly. Debate on the issues we deal with is healthy and productive.

It the debate closed on global warming. See what John Stossels finds out.



Learn about the "The Little Ice Age" here.



Rise in global temperature causes increases in atmospheric CO2. The CO2 increase lags the increase by a few years.

Save Energy Save Cost

For mass acceptance of alternative energy sources there must be savings directly felt by the end user. The best motivation is for the energy consumer to spend less money for equivalent use and comfort. There is somewhat of a correlation between the end cost and the efficiency of delivery of the usable energy. As the efficiencies of alternatives are improved lower prices will be seen by the consumer.

At current prices solar costs per watt production capacity is about three times that of continuing with oil and other current sources. There is new hope with the thin film technology. The lack of expensive silicon in thin film is dramatically dropping the price. It appears that thin film technology will make the one to one cost ratio feasible in the next few years.

Most people prefer energy sources that are clean and don't require dangerous methods of harvest. The price paid usually overrides these concerns, however. Once the price of the environmentally friendly choice is the same there will be gradual steady mass adoption. This will lead to further cost savings because of economy of scale. That will accelerate adoption.

Environmentalists goals are best achieved through sound economics.

Where have all the windmills gone?

I was disappointed to hear that T. Boone Pickens had to put the west Texas wind farm project on hold. I was hoping the project would still fly based on the long run projections. It looks like the barrel price of oil needs to go back over $70 to make this practical. Too bad... The environment can use the break. Also, we need to get off the foreign oil dependence.