Hot air and OBP's

To: Evan Beaver <>
Subject: Hot air and OBP's
From: Carl Clifford <>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:32:09 +1000
Hi Evan,
The September '06 issue of Scientific American is a special issue, "Energy's Future Beyond Carbon", it should be interesting reading, even for people with Tinnitus and Myopia. The issue will probably be in the Newsagents by the end of October or earlier if you want to pay the extra for the air freighted copies at the city stores of outlets such as Angus & Robertson or Borders.
Carl Clifford

On 07/09/2006, at 1:18 PM, Evan Beaver wrote:

To clarify:

I'm not really making any money from the wind industry. For one there isn't really one in Australia, and my interest is purely academic. Through 8 years
of Uni I've written read a lot of papers on renewable technology and my
support of wind farms is based on this; not the other way around.
They represent a superb engineering solution to the problem. CO2 payback and Energy payback time are both lower than Solar. They also produce AC power,
albeit at unregulated frequency. They are much cheaper to produce per kW
than solar. Note also that I am a big advocate of solar and geothermal, none of the other technologies (biomass, tidal, wave) will actually put a dent in CO2. Wind and solar are great; they're portable, pretty easy to install and work quite well in hybrid systems. The weather is such that when there is no
wind there is often a lot of sun, and vice versa. I suspect that these
hybrid systems will become more common in the future, particularly in remote

To answer some questions I have received and read.

I know of no industry website or body in Australia to deal with residential wind applications. Unless you are in an unusual area, say on a ridge top or right on the coast boundary flow conditions are such that you would either need a VERY high tower to reach the wind or a massive turbine. Solar is much more useful at home and less likely to kill birds or your house when it goes

Wind speed occurs in line with a Rayleigh distribution of shape factor about 2, for those who are interested. This means that peak wind, and therefore peak noise, occur only .001 of the time at best. This is not very often. In
general the turbines will spin fairly quietly in a 5-10k breeze. Most
descriptions of the noise produced by turbines describe it as being similar to living near a road or even the ocean. it is 'pink' noise and can actually
be quite soothing to some people. Further to this the amount of noise
perceived at distance will depend greatly on environmental factors and will drop off sharply with respect to distance. If you're a couple of k's away
you probably won't hear a thing.

As far as I know there is no cure for tinnitus.

Or short-sightedness as far as I know.

To close all I ask is that people be open minded. I've been working on a
project recently to determine how climate change will proceed and what needs
to be done to mitigate the worst effects. The short answer is that we've
already missed the first cut off and the weather is going to get pretty
hairy over the next 5-10 years. Don't believe me? 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, category 4 and 5 cyclones have doubled in the last 10 years. Australia continues to be in drought coupled with 10 of the hottest years ON RECORD including the geological record occurring in the last 14 years. We have broken the climate, and it needs to be fixed now. Put aside your petty
concerns about a little bit of noise or the odd bit of technology being
dotted across the country side. Something must be done. RIGHT NOW. Yes
nuclear power produces low emmissions power, if you discount the time it
takes to build, commission and mine the necessary fuel. Some estimates
actually put it CO2 positive once transport and storage are taken into
account. Even if it's not, Energy Payback and CO2 payback is in the order of 12-15 years. Clearly not a solution for the moment. We have plenty of good,
easy to install technology at our fingertips right now. Why not use it?

Phew, sorry about the rant, but it's been building for a while and thursday is traditionally rant day. Birds you say? Yes they're going to be affected too. A paper on the cusp of release, which has been reviewed by at least 200 scientists estimates that species loss due ONLY to climate change will be in the order of one species per week for the next 50 years. And they're not the chooks of the world, it's the specialists that will go first, regent HE's,
Sooty Alby's, the big Owls, Cassowary, on and on. If we're not careful
pretty soon a Crimson Rosella might turn out to be a pretty good tick.


To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)


To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU