Micro Wind Power Plant

Mary asks…

Any ideas for an easy research experiment for a college biology class?

I’m taking a biological writing class and we have to come up with an experiment we could actually do. We have to write a research proposal (I think), an annotated bibliography, and we have to have real journal articles, etc to back up our proposal and final paper. I cant think of any type of easy experiment at the college level. any ideas? Any easy to understand articles that you’ve read lately? I’d appreciate any help. Thanks

Windmill Farms answers:

MARINA CAILLAUD (section 8) On leave 2009-10

* Differential gene expression in the pea aphid. Microarray analysis revealed that several candidate genes are differentially expressed between two host races (alfalfa and clover). Undergraduate Research students will use RT-PCR and qRT-PCR to verify differential expression and identify genes involved in the feeding behavior of aphids.

ED CLUETT (section 6) 2009-10 Opportunities

* mechanisms and pathways of cholesterol transport inside cells
* effect of the cholesterol environment on protein function and its relation to diseases: NPC1 and processing of Amyloid Precursor Protein
* lab activities for high school biology classes

JASON HAMILTON (section 7) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Maple syrup production: climate correlates for a tasty treat
* Non-Timber Forest Products: how to grow an edible mushroom
* Non-Timber Forest Products: can we grow paw paws here?
* Citizen Science: “New” ways to monitor wildlife range changes
* The Power of the Sun: Development of a solar fountain on I.C. Campus
* Ecosystem complexity in practice: let’s build a wetland
* Sustainable food systems: let’s eat a bug

JEAN HARDWICK (section 3) 2009-10 Opportunities

* regulation of parasympathetic neurons

JOHN HOPPLE (section 12) 2009-10 Opportunities

* understanding evolutionary relationships of species in the genus Coprinus (the inky caps) from molecular and morphological characters
* reconciling biological and phylogenetic species concepts in fungi
* reconstructing a fungal taxonomy congruent with phylogeny exploring macroevolutionary changes in spore dispersal in basidiomycetes

MAKI INADA (section 13) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Investigation of SR protein splicing and regulation in Schizosaccharomyces pombe

LEANN KANDA (section 11) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Activity patterns and space use of mink
* Relationship between social status and movement behaviors in dwarf hamsters
* Behavioral syndromes in muskrat

KIRWIN PROVIDENCE (section 10) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Determining the mechanism used (by two different species of bacteria) to inhibit proper skin-wound healing. (Project with relevance to Human health and Medicine)

* Design and use of micro-fabricated devices to aid in studying skin cell motility (such as observed during wound repair). (Project with relevance to Human health and Medicine)

* Identification of specific algae proteins that mediate initial cell adhesion and subsequent biofilm formation. (Project with relevance to Environmental science)

PETER MELCHER (section 9) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Determining factors that affect the biomechanical properties of bordered pit membranes in plants
* Evaluating how xylem-wounding affects the measure of stem hydraulic resistance
* Determining a method to measure the hydraulic resistance in tissue that contain multiple ears of growth
* Assessing the impact of leaf extract on soil microbial activity

ANDY SMITH (section 5) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Using biochemical and mechanical experiments to characterize the cross-linking mechanism of gel-based biological glues
* Identifying factors that control the mechanical properties of biological glues

BRUCE SMITH (section 1) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Pheromone communication in water mites
* Mating behavior: female choice and male-male competition in water mites
* Sex-ratio skew in mites: how & why specialize in producing male or female offspring?

* Summer research at Queen’s Univ. Biological Station in Canada

SUSAN SWENSEN (section 2) 2009-10 Opportunities

* Evolutionary history of plants and insect parasites
* Projects in sustainability science

Joseph asks…

How is soil pollution occur?What is the solution of soil pollution?

Windmill Farms answers:

Definition:
Modifications of soil features or, more generally, of its chemical and biological balance, caused by the discharge of polluting substances.

There are four sorts of polluted land:
Places where gas works, oil refineries, oil storage depots nuclear power stations and chemical factories have been built
Refuse dumps where domestic and industrial waste are deposited
Agricultural land where modern farming methods have been practised
The rest of the world’s land surface
The first might be regarded as the price we have to pay for what such places produce as long as the pollution stays where it is. Unfortunately movement of vehicles on to and off the land, run-off of rain water and dust carried by the wind spread the pollution further afield. There is also no way to prevent wildlife getting onto such land and picking up the injurious material directly.

The second is the result of wilful refusal to build in the cost of treating such waste to make it less harmful when calculating the prices of products and of refuse disposal.

The third is the result of the use or misuse of chemical “aids” such as fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and so on, coupled with the practice of monoculture which creates the illusion of their necessity.
Chemical fertilisers were introduced because of a shortage of organic ones as animal husbandry changed and declined. Applied with care, using the correct amounts to correct deficiencies that have been measured in the soil, they increase yields and do little harm. They are usually applied without prior checks to determine need, and usually in too large quantities despite the extra cost this involves.
The surplus leaches out into the drainage system (the nearest river) upsetting the balance of nutrients in the water and causing excessive growth of water plants such as blanket weed. Other plants are choked and the food chains of which they are parts wither away and die.
Insecticides have been used for many years. The old ones quickly degraded in the soil and did no harm. Their modern equivalents persist for many years, pass up the food chain to affect insectivorous fish, birds and mammals and the predators that feed on them, at the same time destroying many soil micro-organisms on which the natural fertility of the land depends.
They also drift well beyond the areas to which they are intended to be applied, often affecting land where domestic pets are exercised. The animals absorb the pesticides through the skin of their feet or ingest it when grooming themselves, an increasingly common cause of domestic pet ailments.

The fourth type of polluted land results from phenomena such as “acid rain”. Quantities deposited at a time are very small, but because the materials are so persistent the effect is cumulative over many years. Often the effect is not visible for a long time, then there is a sudden decline in the health of the ecosystem and a near-desert results.

Ken asks…

i want to do mechanical project for final year. Any one give a idea?

Windmill Farms answers:

Two Axis Sliding Table
Single Axis Sliding Table
Sliding Table for Grinding Machine
Automatic Blanking Machine
Automatic PVC Pipe Cutting Machine
Automatic Injection Molding
Fabrication of Drilling M/C with Tapping Attachment
Agitator
Fabrication of Wind Mill
Solar Water Heater
Fabricating of Micro Holes Driller
Pneumatic Door Opener
Pneumatic Hand Drilling
Chicken Skin Peeler
Fabrication of Automatic Cone Winding
Fabrication of Pulverize
Fabrication of Automatic Envelope Folding Machine
Automatic Hammer Striker
Fabrication of Coil Winding Machine
Sheet Metal Bend Removing Machine
Fabrication of Yarn Pigment Tester
Fabrication of Key Way Milling Machine
Fabrication of Tilt able Extension Ladder
Fabrication of Duplicate Key Making Machine
Automated Dimensioning Machine
Automatic Drilling Machine
Pneumatic Punching Machine
Automatic Coil Winding Machine
Gas Monitoring System
CNC Bar Feeding Machine
Fabrication of Spring Rolling Machine
Fabrication of Sheet Metal Cutting
Fabrication of Drilling M/C with Key Way Attachment
Indexing Table for Drilling Machine
Pneumatic Cylinder
Hydraulic Cylinder
Design of Effluent Treatment Plant
Automatic filing system
Single Cylinder Double Acting Pump
Solar Based Oven
CNC Thermo Coal Cutting Machine
Paint Mixing Machine
Automatic Cone Releaser
Automatic Sealing Machine
Pneumatic Hand Grinder
Band Saw Cutting Machine
Manual Injection Molding
Fabrication of Drilling Machine with Variable Speed Drive In Level Method
Fabrication of Drilling Machine with Variable Speed Drive In Screw Method
Fabrication of Oven
Jigs And Fixtures
Fabrication of Hydraulic Press
Mini Milling Machine
Metal Detector
Fabrication of Semi-Automatic Ramming M/C
Design & Fabrication of Soft Start Couplings
Motorized Power Jack
Automatic Crane System
Auto Gearing System
Remote Material Handler
Hydraulic Noodles Machine
Automatic Bar Feeding Mechanism
Hydraulic Scissor Jack
Hydraulic Screw Jack
Automated Material Transferring System
Conveyer For Industries
Automatic filling system
Automatic car shutter
Automatic steering controlled lead lamps
Remote controlled wheel chair
ABC controlling through switch
Slave robots
Artificial arm

Daniel asks…

What is the difference between Port of Spain and Kingston?

Has anyone lived in both? If so, what is the difference? Which one is bigger? More cosmopolitan? More things to do?

Thanks!

Windmill Farms answers:

Traffic entering into Kingston from the west takes people from areas like Montego bay and other places across Jamaica,once on Mandela Rd/high w 2000 going in town/[Capitol] you’ll be greeted by the aswome view of the Blue Mountains which apppears massive,& blue.
And many high rise buildings in the financial center and down town.
Both cities are capitols for the respective countries.

Traffic entering Port of Spain is from the east, as there are over 600,000 populous persons who commute by the Roosevelt high way,from places like Arima.

Http://www.visittnt.com/General/Maps/trinidad-towns.html

With a new sky scrapper being builded to house a commercial fincial center on the water front of PoS,its well on its way to be develop city & country by its set date of 2020,with the old Eric williams twin towers/plaza,already dominating the area.

Kingston is Bigger in terms of Population,500,000 plus when Incorporated with Port more another 300,000 plus its 800,000. Most of the population comprises of African descendants.
But you will find many other racies disburse through Kingston.

Port of Spain Trinidad has a population 49,000,40 indian 40 Afro.Multiracial society.
Kingston has the financial district were all head quarters are for national and international businesses on whole,import oriented,economy stagnant,Jamaica import more than US 400 million worth of goods and services from the eastern Caribbean,however life styles may not reflect that in more are less visible or affluent places.
Port of Spain same thing lots of big operations are base there industrially. Export oriented,booming economy,due to wind fall from petroleum.
Port of Spain is the most industrious area in the English speaking Caribbean,second only to Puerto rico.
Kingston gives you night life beyond that of Port of Spain with the list of places like the Acropolis a gaming lounge and many other high end business like restaurant Bar movie theaters and etc; all present in short driving distances.
Of course Port of Spain has the Biggest Carnival and the best.
Kingston also has its own which is also famous there.
Lots of hotels that are more customer friendly can be found in Kingston- Jamaica,Due to the fact, tourism is the life blood of the country.

Http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g147310-Kingston_Jamaica-Vacations.html

http://www.fodors.com/world/caribbean/jamaica/entity_94453.html

View here for activities.

Http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu7rzdlhHMvsAFKdXNyoA?p=Activities+in+Kingston+Jamaica&y=Search&fr=ush-ans&ei=UTF-8

Port of Spain also has good hotels but are rather smaller in size,but still good service.
This site give you a few things that can be done while there,

http://www.caribbeanportreviews.com/Trinidad.htm#Shopping

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g147389-Port_of_Spain_Trinidad_Trinidad_and_Tobago-Vacations.html

Trinidads Port of Spain is also the main shipping hub of the southern Carib-region,because the port is in the Gulf of paria on the north west coast were many indutrial sites are located there are no notable beaches there.

Jamaica is also a main hub for large container Ships with expansion occuring,and boast the 7 natural largest harbour in the world.
Looking for beaches,are little afar however with some reservations you can jet/ferry out to lime cay beach or drive over to Hellshire, which offer good beaches.

Kingston can give just about anything from Calypso even though they don’t own it to R&B, Reggaeton and even world reknown Reggae authentically the best,which they do own.
Jamaica is indeed the cultural super power in the region and bursting with micro environmental natural beauty.
By the way you can climb Jamaica highest peak [2256 m/7402 ft] in the english speaking Caribbean in a day which is only 10 miles out of Kingston, and be back in the city for Dinner.
The Northern range in Trinidad is also beauti ful however the variety of plants and birds differ alot more in the Blue and John crow Mountains,so too climate.

Lisa asks…

Do you like waterwheels?

I’ve been all hung up in new forms of making renewable energy. Over the past week, the sole question I’ve been asking people is “Does blue work for you?” Many people liked the thought of tidal and wave farms. Others supported the idea of pipelining seawater from a desalination plant into cities in the desert like Phoenix and Tucson. Some agreed with the principle of amphibious houses on lakes and riverbeds and offshore prisons on former oil rigs. I have something new to chew on. Do you like the idea of hydro power generated from a waterwheel along a major river. They call them “stream engines.” Imagine a medieval looking waterwheel along the banks of the Mississippi. Are you on board with this idea? Does blue work for you again?

Windmill Farms answers:

Those are common with “run of river” micro hydro which skirts around water property rights a little as the water isn’t really being diverted or constrained.

Of course, micro hydro requires that you do have a suitable stream or water feature on your property, this and water property rights is the main limiting factor to micro hydro.

Fossil fuels, biomass, hydro and wind are all methods of tapping solar energy. Biomass is energy collected via photosynthesis, fossil fuels is energy collected via photosynthesis and stored over millions of years, hydro is from the evaporation of water which precipitates at a higher elevation and flows back towards the sea and wind is from thermal gradients in the atmosphere due to heating from the sun. You’ll note that there’s some degree of inefficiency in all of these, rain doesn’t just happen at high elevations, and even photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of only 6.6% and it’s rare for the entire plant to be converted to chemical fuel. However, the current record efficiency for photovoltaic cells is 42.8% and rising, the only issue now is cost, it’s difficult for photovoltaics to compete price-wise with nature regardless of how inefficient natural processes can be when nature is essentially free or at least we don’t pay the cost of it.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Vertical Wind Turbine

Lizzie asks…

Wind Turbines. Vertical? or Propeller?

I’m interested in small wind Turbines(200W- 5kW),and wanted to know difference between Vertical and Propeller blades.Where I can find information about it ?Thank you.

Windmill Farms answers:

Centre for Alternative Technology run very good courses and have some online info sheets

vertical means you can put all your machinery on the ground for easy maintenance etc. But they are not reliably self-starting, and near the ground the wind is more turbulent and not as strong.
Hence most comercial wind turbines are “propeller” type.

Betty asks…

looking for a wind turbine that is vertical. and spins laying on its back to be more compact ideas?

I saw it on a tv show once the guy lives next to Bill Nye the since guy they both try to got more green.

Windmill Farms answers:

Probably the Giromill subtype of the Darrieus vertical axis wind turbine. The Giromill addresses the low starting torque and cyclic oscillation problems of the Darrieus but as with all VAWT designs, it can only achieve about 50% of the efficiency of a horizontal axis wind turbine simply because the vanes have to rotate back into the wind. The VAWT are more compact than the HAWT designs and don’t need to be steered into the wind as well as function at lower wind speeds so they do have a place in micro-turbine applications.

I think Jay Leno was building a Savonius type VAWT in his garage and was in a competition to be more green than another celebrity. Most be nice to have that much disposable income and time.

If you actually wanted to get the most energy out of a given site and at the lowest capital investment, you would still use a traditional HAWT design. But the VAWT’s do look neat.

Chris asks…

what are the differences between the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) and vertical axis wind turbine(VAWT)?

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind turbines can be separated into two types based by the axis in which the turbine rotates. Turbines that rotate around a horizontal axis are more common. Vertical-axis turbines are less frequently used.

Horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) have the main rotor shaft and electrical generator at the top of a tower, and are usually pointed into the wind.

Vertical-axis wind turbines (or VAWTs) have the main rotor shaft arranged vertically. Key advantages of this arrangement are that the turbine does not need to be pointed into the wind to be effective. This is an advantage on sites where the wind direction is highly variable. VAWTs can utilize winds from varying directions.

Helen asks…

Why horizontal axis wind turbine are more common use in commerical rather than vertical axis wind turbine?

Windmill Farms answers:

Well, I would venture a guess that it is because the wind generally blows horizontal relative to the ground (for terrestrial-based turbines). It seems that the most efficient blade design lends itself to have an axis that is also horizontal.

BUT, there are some futuristic wind turbines that may show up that will have vertical axes. Well, they might have somewhat tilted axes, but you will get what I mean after reading the Popular Science article below. Apparently, flying wind turbines are on the horizon.

Linda asks…

why are wind turbines with blades more effective than vertical axis turbines?

Simple answers please. I am trying to understand this concept in the most simple terms as possible. Thanks for answering my question!

Windmill Farms answers:

Okay, both designs rely on a airfoil with air flow over the surface of both sides of each blade. With the conventional wind turbine, this airfold maintains a constant angle to the incoming wind (assuming that the axis of the rotors is turned into the wind, as they normally are) throughout each rotation of the blades. In contrast, the airfoil of the vertical axis turbines turns at different angles to the incoming wind during each rotation. Hence, while the former can maintain a fixed relationship of the airfoil to the incoming wind for peak efficiency, the latter suffers from “dead spots” where there is decreased efficiency—twice per rotation. Furthermore, if the airfoil profile is asymmetric, then peak Bernoulli effect occurs at only one point per rotation, because the opposite side would present an inverted airfoil profile. The selling point of vertical axis turbines is not having to “turn into the incoming wind” as the conventional wind turbines have to, so it makes for a simpler and lighter design.

However, it might be possible to develop a more sophisticated blade for the vertical axis turbines that flexes or changes shape during rotation as to decrease or eliminate such dead spots.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Is Wind Power Green Paper

Mary asks…

any invention ideas for a “green” product made from sustainable material?

i have a school project and i need to invent a “green” product made from sustainable material. i have a pretty tight budget and time constraint and have no electrical experience whatsoever. if you dont have any ideas could you give me some examples of sustainable materials

Thankyou

Windmill Farms answers:

Sustainable materials: wood because you can plant another tree..mayabe create some sort of paper product… Cardboard box that would biodegrade into fertilizer or mulch for a veggie garden??

Water power/ wave action power to produce energy for a small custom green business
wind power
grasses/grains
plant based oils
A sustainable material is a material that can be replanted, or partially harvested (will regrow), or is just ‘there’ free for use.

Daniel asks…

Best Solutions for green energy and why?

I’m making a research paper for my English class, (11th grade)
And I’ve chosen the topic as green energy..

I’m going to use three “solutions,”
one of which is fusion power, however I am undecided on the rest, can you all tell me what other two and why they are more effective than everything else?
Just a few valid points and trade offs to each one, I’ll do the rest.

Thank you all

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind and solar because there is a lot of energy potential form both
both are renewable, and both put out massive amounts of energy, the only problem is tapping that energy

David asks…

“Green” Bicycle Race — Need Sponsor?

I’ve got an idea for a bicycle race where human power is combined with solar, wind, battery, and/or “braking generators”. You’d set a MINIMUM weight on the bike, say 250lbs to encourage folks to innovate and install other devices on their vehicle (or trike or quad whatever), ensuring that a professional cyclist cannot win without assistance from other energy sources. You’d establish limits on the dimensions of the vehicle when on the road, and different limits when parked (perhaps the rider would spread out solar power panels for stationary charging or turn its wheels into windmills). There would be 4 legs to the race:
1. Human powered (including any real-time charge that could be generated after starting the race with dead batteries)
2. Idle/stationary charge time (simulating the rider being at work)
3. Alternative energy only, and
4. Dual power.

DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT IS INTERESTED IN ORGAINZING AND SPONSORING SUCH AN EVENT?

Windmill Farms answers:

I don’t know anything specific, but you could talk to:

local bike shops
big bike companies and ask (without giving details first) for contact info for their local rep
clothing shops
battery retail outlets
check the net for companies that might have equipment that could be used.

Don’t be afraid to think out of the box for sponsorship… If you have a route planned, think about businesses on the route. Think about green oriented companies.
Think about prosperous companies that aren’t terribly green that might want to put some cash into getting their name associated with something eco-friendly.
Find specific examples of companies that have product that could be used and talk to them.

I helped a local (asian) company work out a sponsorship deal for an overseas racing team.

The company had some requirements for them that might be applied to your situation as well.

If anyone is going to give out sponsorship dollars or free gear or whatever, they are going to want to get something back for their efforts.

Think what you can provide them:
Having a capable pro photographer helps boatloads! If he sucks, you will get nothing. If he can’t show a portfolio (and a relevant one at that), you will get nothing.

Think of how you can get media attention for your event:
Talk to local papers and local community magazines and get some plans for having solid details (ie a written agreement to place an article in their published material of a certain length with specific mention of sponsors).

Get as much planned out in advance as possible. Get the route planned. The approximate date and time. Prizes. Photographers names and websites. Find out what permits you need. Find out costs. Plan the number of volunteers required. Plan the emergency services. Plan checkpoints (water, tools, pumps, energy bars…)

Set up a blog for the event itself. Make it organized and neat.

It’s going to be a lot of work, but if it’s worth it to you, you could make it happen.

Right there are enough ideas that you could grab your local phone book and build a list of probably a hundred phone numbers or more to call. Google would probably give you 30 or 40 email addresses.

Jenny asks…

BEING GReEn!?

Me and my science group are doing a conservation project and we have to talk about being green and easy ways. Remember these tips are going to be said to kids ages 5-14 so make it easy enough and affordable enough for them. thnx sooo much.

Windmill Farms answers:

REDUCE
Reduce your stuff. Commercialization has resulted in an overabundance of stuff in many homes and businesses across the world, but more so, here in the United States. Take a look around you – how much of that stuff do you really need? Before you purchase another item – ask yourself – do I really need this?
Reduce the amount of driving you do.
Reduce your energy consumption.
Reduce your subscriptions to newspapers or magazines – its all online anyhow!!
Reduce the number of cleaning supplies in your house and clean green with three basic ingredients.
REUSE
Around the house, think before you toss. Can this item be used again (safe and sanitary, of course)?
Take your own shopping bags to the market or any store for that matter.
Pass on outgrown clothing to a friend or neighbor who can use it.
RECYCLE
Recycling is not just separating your green glass from your brown or collecting newspapers. Send your ink jet and laser printer cartridges back for recycling – many cartridge companies will even provide you with postage free return shipping.
You can recycle car batteries, tires, and motor oil.
RENEW
Renewable resources that is! Always choose paper over plastic when given the choice. Paper is a renewable resource. We can plant more trees. Petroleum used for making plastic is not. When it is gone, its gone.
What about solar power and wind generated power? These are viable energy sources but we need to educate the masses.
RESPECT
We only have one Earth and we all have to live on it together. Respect your environment and try to leave the smallest footprint possible.

Linda asks…

What is Green Technology?

What is it and what ere examples of it.

Windmill Farms answers:

Recycling
Recycling is a Worldwide Phenomenon, which is a basic application towards the concept of Green Technology. It shows and encourages people to reuse items that can be reusable. Items like saving Cans of food or drinks, Paper etc have been encouraged by the governing bodies around America and rest of the world, to be recycled so that it can be used in the future for several other purposes. It can thus help protect the environment and cause less waste/pollution.[1]

[edit] Water Purification
Water purification: The whole idea of having dirt/germ/pollution free water flowing throughout the environment. Many other phenomenons’ lead from this concept of Purification of water. Water Pollution is the main enemy of this concept, and various campaigns and activists have been organized around the world to help purify Water. Considering the amount of water usage that is under current consumptions, this Concept is of utter Importance.[2]

[edit] Air Purification
Air Purification: basic and common green plants can be grown indoors to keep air fresh because all plants remove CO2 and converts it into oxygen. The best examples are: Dypsis lutescens, Sansevieria trifasciata, and Epipremnum aureum.[3]

[edit] Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment is a concept that is really close to Water Purification. Sewage Treatments are very important as it purifies water in levels of its pollution. The more the water is polluted, it’s not used for anything, the least polluted water is supplied to places where Water is used affluently. It may lead to vaious other concepts of environmental protection, sustainability etc.[4]

[edit] Environmental remediation
Environmental remediation is the removal of pollutants or contaminants for the general protection of the environment. This is accomplished by various chemical, biological, and bulk movement methods, in conjunction with environmental monitoring. (encyclopedia of medical concepts)[5]

[edit] Solid waste management
Solid waste management is the purification, Consumption, Reuse, Disposal and Treatment of solid waste that is looked after by the government or the ruling bodies of a city/town.[6]

[edit] Renewable energy
Renewable energy is energy that can be replenished easily. For years we have been using sources like wood, sun, water etc for means for producing energy. Energy that can be produced by natural objects like wood, sun, wind etc is considered to be renewable.[7]

[edit] eGain forecasting
Egain forecasting is a method using forecasting technology to predict the future weather’s impact on a building. [8] By adjusting the heat based on the weather forecast, the system eliminates redundant use of heat, thus reducing the energy consumption and the emission of greenhouse gases.[9]

[edit] Energy Conservation
Energy conservation is the utilization of devices that require smaller amounts of energy in order to reduce the consumption of electricity. Reducing the use of electricity causes less fossil fuels to be burned to provide that electricity.

[edit] Alternative and clean power

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Uses Of Wind Energy

Daniel asks…

what is energy when used with wind power?

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind turbines convert mechanical energy (wind moving over the blades) into electrical energy (current & voltage out of the electric generator).

The big turbines are AC, and do not store the energy. They put it directly onto the grid.

(There are a few experimental systems where very large batteries are used to smooth, store, or otherwise regulate the power put onto the grid, but these are not strictly part of the wind turbine.)

Joseph asks…

wind energy???

i know wind energy is powered by a generator, but how does this help?? doesnt the generator use oil or gas?? this wouldn’t help reduce costs would it?

Windmill Farms answers:

Hello my husband works on the commercial wind turbines. You got two correct answers from the other two posters, but I’ll try to put it into simpler terms.

First off my husbands wind turbine site has 43 turbines. In a year they produce about two 55 gallon barrels of waste oil/grease a year, for all 43.

Yes, turbines use oil/grease. If the oil or grease must be changed out (like a part got chewed up, and the oil is now contaminated) then it goes off to be recycled. It is never just dumped in landfills. It is always recycled. So in effect wind turbines produce no waste oil…it always has a second “life.”

Wind turbines take a lot of energy to manufacture, but over the course of their life, they generate much more energy than was used to manufacture them.

Did you ever play with a pinwheel as a child? The colorful things that spin on the end of a stick?

Imagine the pinwheel is connected to a tiny generator. The wind causes the pinwheel to spin, and that turns the generator, and makes it generate electricity.

Wind turbines of course do so on a large scale.

Yes they reduce costs, and provide a very clean source of energy.

~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years

Thomas asks…

In which industry we use Wind energy?

Wind energy can be used for power generation I know also that wind energy in farming,wind pumps,
Wind energy is a pollution-free, infinitely sustainable form of energy.
thanks

Windmill Farms answers:

Any industry can use electricity from wind generators

George asks…

What other solutions are there not to use Wind turbines/wind energy?

I am trying to find solutions on what people can do not use wind turbines because it has so many disadvantage of having it. I need solutions what can people do so we wont use them anymore.

Windmill Farms answers:

If you are in the UK this is the answer due to Government subsidy.

We have installed solar panels that we own so know how the system works.

“Free” ones are just that. The house owner gets the “free” use of electricity generated so you can save on your electric bill.

However to fully benefit you have to be careful when you use electricity. For example if you use a washing machine / dishwasher / tumble dryer at night when the panels aren’t generating you don’t/can’t get free electricity! During a sunny day the panels might be generating 1kw but if you switch on a 2kw appliance you pay for the excess1kw needed to run the appliance.
So yes you will save some money on your electric bill but probably only 40% certainly not 100% of your bill.

The owner of the panels (i.e us!) is the one to benefit. We have a 4kWh system (biggest allowed under Government subsidy) and get paid +/-46p per kilowatt hour generated. We all buy electricity from the Power Companies at 12-14p unit so it is a huge subsidy – which the rest of you are paying – not the Government – one reason why bills are so expensive now!

As a generalisation the capital cost was £12,000 but I am earning +/- £1600 year. To put another way although I still buy some electricity and all gas in effect we will be getting all our gas / electric “for free” and about £600 extra cash in hand!

If you have the cash BUY YOUR OWN as the scheme is Government guaranteed for 25 years!
In investment terms it is a 8-12% TAX FREE return for 25 years – you can’t get anything like that anywhere else.

If you want more specific help email me and I can do the figures for your house and send some pictures of our installation.

P.S. Even on dull days it still generates. Recently on a rainy grey overcast day we were still generating about 240w. So in Janaury when it will be freezing with perhaps snow on the ground as long as the sun is shining we will be generating! It converts light to power – heat is not needed to make it work!

Donna asks…

What are the energy conversions that occur in creating energy using wind?

In point form, how is energy generated from wind and what energy conversion occur?

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind energy is kinetic energy, the kinetic energy of the wind is converted into mechanical energy (still kinetic really) which is converted into electrical energy by the rotation of conductors in a magnetic field or the rotation of a magnetic field around conductors.

The wind energy itself is created from heat energy , which is created from electromagnetic (light) energy from the Sun which is created by nuclear energy from the fusion of hydrogen.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Wind Energy Jobs

Mandy asks…

what is status of research in wind Energy Technology at present?

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind sources for transport needs seem very promising. See study:
“Top 7 alternative energies listed”
4 January 2009 by Catherine Brahic

The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres – in theory, at least. That’s the conclusion of a detailed study ranking 11 types of non-fossil fuels according to their total ecological footprint and their benefit to human health.

The study, carried out by Mark Jacobson of the atmosphere and energy programme at Stanford University, found wind power to be by far the most desirable source of energy. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came right at the bottom of the list, along with nuclear power and “clean” coal.

The energy sources that Jacobson found most promising were, in descending order:

• Wind

• Concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a tower of water)

• Geothermal energy

• Tidal energy

• Solar panels

• Wave energy

• Hydroelectric dams

To compare the fuels, Jacobson calculated the impacts each would have if it alone powered the entire US fleet of cars and trucks.

He considered not just the quantities of greenhouse gases that would be emitted, but also the impact the fuels would have on the ecosystem – taking up land and polluting water, for instance. Also considered were the fuel’s impact on pollution and therefore human health, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form’s reliability.

“The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most,” says Jacobson.

“Some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” he says. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply, and land use than current fossil fuels.”

Biofuel concerns
Jacobson says it would take 30 times more space to grow enough corn to power the US fleet than would be needed to erect enough wind turbines, while bioethanol would produce more greenhouse gases than wind power.

Biofuels have received a considerable amount of political backing in recent years with the US and Europe setting targets to phase in their use and gradually replace oil.

Energy and wildlife experts have expressed concerns about biofuels and the EU last year appeared to reconsider its position.

Nuclear is another energy source whose merits have been debated by European and US leaders alike in the past 12 months. “It results in 25 times more carbon and air pollution than wind,” says Jacobson. Half of those emissions are caused by the time it takes to plan and build a nuclear power plant – time during which fossil fuels have to be burnt for energy.

“Clean” coal – the process of burning coal then capturing the emitted carbon dioxide and storing it underground – is another political favourite. Jacobson’s calculations show that building and using enough clean coal power plants would emit up to 110 times more carbon than building and using wind turbines only.

Focused efforts
“The philosophy that we should try a little bit of everything is wrong,” says Jacobson. “We need to focus on the technologies that provide the best benefit. We know which these are.”

Jacobson acknowledges that politicians are calling for a massive jobs programme to pull the economy out of recession, but says investment in renewable energy is one way to do that.

“Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to healthcare, crop damage, and climate damage – as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power,” he says.

Jacobson presented his results to the chairman of the Senate energy and Natural Resources Committee in October last year. They are published in Energy and Environmental Science this month (DOI: 10.1039/b809990c).

Charles asks…

Is solar energy and wind energy creating millions of new jobs across Canada?

I know that Ontario’s manufacturing base has been devastated by this recession and that people need jobs, i was thinking of getting retrained for something new too, then I heard that everyone who got laid off from factories are now working installing solar power farms (Wind turbines and solar panels). Is this true, are the tens of thousands of unemployed people now working in renewable energy projects like solar and wind power ?

Are these new careers (wind turbine installer / solar panel installer ) the answer to North America’s unemployment problem? Will millions and millions of people soon be installing solar panels and wind turbines EVERYWHERE?

When you wake up and walk out of your house and head off to work / school, how many hundreds / thousands of solar panels / wind turbines do YOU see during the day ?

Windmill Farms answers:

No. Canada only has a population of 34 million people, you won’t get 5% of the population employed making wind turbines or solar panels. Ontario Hydro One only has 5,400 employees. Even large construction projects such as stadiums only have a few thousand workers on it at any one time.

Further, solar power is pretty useless in Canada. It’s distance from the equator makes it highly inefficient, few places in Canada get much sunlight other than the summer months, and most places receive extreme weather which ruins solar panels quickly. Likewise, most parts of the country (other than the coasts) do not have steady winds.

Sunlight (at the equator) produces about 120W per square meter. At 50 degrees north it is around 60W. The best solar panels are barely 10% efficient. That is 6W per square meter. A typical house consumes 8,900 kilowatt-hours of power per year or about 25kWh per day. You’d need an area of 35m x 35m to power a single house. (Assuming 8 hours of sunlight per day, no clouds or rain, 100% efficient batteries for night time power, ignoring the energy to make and maintain the solar panels, power loss in transmission, etc.) That is a football field sized area just to get power to one house.

When I walk outside my house I see clouds and grey. In a few weeks, I’ll see snow, frost, and sleet driving down on the ground.

John asks…

Job aspect of energy (nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)?

i’m doing a project on the job aspect of of energy, in the economy, (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.) How will energy and such plants create jobs for our economy, and how does it affect the job aspect?

Windmill Farms answers:

To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we are seeking to double our renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient. The energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama on February 17, will create more than 500,000 jobs, and accelerate deployment of smart grid technology, provide energy efficiency funds for the nation’s schools, offer support for the nation’s governors and mayors to tackle their energy challenges, and establish a new loan guarantee program to keep our transition to renewable energy on track during the economic crisis.

“… this approach is a win-win for a strong economy and a healthier environment. With green investments of close to $100 Billion, this bill will create good jobs for people here in America and reduce our dependence on dirtier energy sources. The Sierra Club praises Congress for promoting the shift to wind and solar power, high energy performance low carbon cars and buildings, mass transit, and a modernized water and transportation infrastructure.” [Sierra Club, 2/11/09]

“..this economic recovery package …will deliver jobs and green infrastructure to America. The bill makes smart investments that will jumpstart the economy, help sustain future growth, and meet the challenges of the 21st century… The recovery package includes bold investments for renewable energy and efficiency… Renewable energy grants will help struggling businesses cope with the economic climate and advance technology that harnesses the power of the wind and sun…The economic recovery package reflects the commitment by Congress to fulfill President Obama’s vision for a clean energy future.”[Natural Resources Defense Council, 2/13/09]

Nancy asks…

What do wind energy techs do and how much do they make ?

I’m interested in this field of work . I know very little about it . I am interested in knowing What is in a day of work and how much someone gets paid to do it . I have an opportunity to go to school for this but I would like to know the pros and cons before I make any decisions . Any help will be appreciated

Windmill Farms answers:

I am a wind turbine tech. Techs start between $14.00 an hour and $20.00 an hour. The top out on the pay scale is somewhere over $30 an hour. It depends alot on whom you go to work for, i.e. An OEM (GE, Siemens, Vestas, Clipper, Mitsubishi, etc) a contactor (Granite, EMS, OTT, etc), or an owner (FPL, Iberdrola, Outlands, Noble, Invenergy, Babcock and Brown, Edison Power, etc). Wind is a very odd business, it is not uncommon for a site to have personnel from 2 to 8 different companies on it at the same time. This depends on the scope of the contract that the owner signed with the manufacturer (OEM) when they bought their turbines.

Here are some examples:

There are personnel from 2 companies on the site I work at most of the time. There is 1 person that works for the owner, and 5 of us that work for the OEM. We have a 5 year contract to operate and maintain (O&M) this site. The customer is responsible for balance of plant, (BOP). BOP includes the transformers that are just outside the towers, the underground feeder lines, the substation, and the transmission lines that feed the power we produce into the power grid at the Utilities substation about 10 miles away. On a particular day in February, there were the following personnel on site: 1 owner representative, 5 OEM techs, 4 people from a crane company (with 2 cranes), 10 contractor personnel from Granite Services (brought in to do some work with the crane), 8 electricians working on a feeder fault for the owners, and 6 people from the local utility working in the substation. See what I mean?

Another example. A freind of mine works at another site where they have a Warrenty only contract. So, they have 6 or so people that fix any warrenty problems with the turbines. The owners are providing their own people for O&M and BOP. Sounds easier right? Not exactly. If a turbine goes down, the O&M guys have to go out and work on it for 2 hours before calling the Warrenty guys to fix it. You still have the same amount of people running around at different times.

As for what a wind turbine tech does, that again depends on who you hire with, and what their contract is. An O&M tech does all routine maintenance on the turbine, change the filters, grease the machine, clean it, check the torque on the bolts, and the 1st 2 hours of troubleshooting on any problem that comes down. If you are an OEM O&M tech, you will do all the troubleshooting and repair of the turbines in addition to all the maintenance. If you are a contractor, you will do whatever it is that you are contracted to do, oil changes, crane work, retrofits, etc. Almost anything you do on wind turbines will be in metric since they are mostly designed in Europe.

1 thing you need to keep in mind. These towers are 65 to 100 meters (213 to 328 feet) tall, with the average being around 80 meters (262 feet). Most of them just have a ladder that goes up the inside, bottom to top. There is no elevator or manlift in them. It is a lot of work getting up that ladder. I have said since I started that the hardest part of the job is just getting up the tower. About 75% of the work to be done will be up tower. You will also be working in all different weather conditions (hot, cold, rain, snow, etc.) and you will be on call at least part of the time, so it is possible that you will be working at any time including the middle of the night. Wind sites are usually located in remote areas, so road conditions, traffic, and wildlife are all hazards of the job. Wild life includes: yellow jackets, snakes, badgers, coyotes, deer, elk, moose, cattle, you name it. Contrary to popular belief, birds thrive amongst the turbines. On my site we have: Blue birds, Red tailed hawks, owls, bald eagles, grouse, quail, pheasants, and many others.

All in all, it is a great job. You will stay in shape, make a good wage, work in a challanging job, and get to do something for the environment.

Hope this helps you.

Offio
Wind turbine technician for the last 3 years.
(Garnet’s husband)

Susan asks…

Geography – wind energy?

a) What is the need for increased use of wind energy?

b) What are the new policies to reduce the use of co2 emissions and increase the use of renewable energy?

c) Possible consequences of climate change from fossil fuels?

Windmill Farms answers:

A) more clean energy, positive environmental impact, improved energy security, more clean energy jobs
2) favorable tax incentives, rebates, renewable energy portfolio standards, etc
3) Fossil fuels when burn release harmful greenhouse gas emissions, more greenhouse gas emissions mean stronger climate change impact which can result in more frequent extreme events, new diseases, extinction of species, hunger, millions of environmental refugees, etc

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Renewable Energy Stocks

Donald asks…

What are some good renewable energy stocks I should look at?

Windmill Farms answers:

There are some solar energy stocks around. I believe Jim Cramer mentioned one recently on his Mad Money program. If you go to thestreet.com, you can access a synopsis of recent shows. It’s free.

Nancy asks…

I want to invest in Green Energy stocks… But where do I look?

I want to buy stocks in Green/Renewable Energy. Such as Solar, Wind etc.
Does any one know which company’s sell stocks in the $5.00 to $15.00 rang? I plan on holding the stocks for a couple of years or maybe more and the trade commissions are at $12.99. I have looked and looked but having trouble on where t look…. Thank you all

Windmill Farms answers:

There are some index funds that invest in green energy stocks. One option would be to buy some stock in one of those funds. Another would be to see what stocks they have bought and research those to see which you would prefer. I do need to warn you though that green energy stocks are not as attractive as they once were, not with oil at $40 a barrel. Anyway here are the index funds.

FAN at $13.38 a share First Trust ISE Global Wind Energy Index Fund. Its largest holding is Vestas Wind Systems, the largest wind turbine company.

PWND at $12.82 a share Power Shares Global Wind Energy Portfolio. Its largest holding is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

TAN at $8.70 a share Claymore/MAC Global Solar Energy Index ETF. Its largest holding is First Solar

KWT at $15.38 a share Market Vectors Solar Energy ETF. Its largest holding is Q-Cells

GEX at $23.42 a share Market Vectors Global Alternative Energy ETF. Its largest holding is First Solar.

GWO at $5.46 a share ELEMENTS Global Warming. I have no idea what this fund holds but I think it has many of the securities owned by the others.

One of the critiques of these index funds is that they are capitalization weighted. That means that overpriced stocks make up most of their holdings. Not a real great strategy for making money. But what you can do is go to the sites of these funds and find out what companies they have invested in and go from there. All of these are down significantly from their highs, some by better than 60%

These are just a few of the index funds that I know of. There might be 20 more that I am not aware of.

Maria asks…

Is it true Bill Gates is selling all of his shares in microsoft in order to buy up renewable energy stocks?

Okay, here’s what I read; Bill Gates has very little involvement with Microsoft these days and is slowly dumping all of his MS shares quietly, and reinvesting his money into renewable energy stocks like wind and solar power. Is this really true that he realises Microsoft is under the knife to the likes of Google and Apple and he knows it so he’s doing this? Just curious.

Windmill Farms answers:

Bill has been slowly divesting his Microsoft shares for years. It’s part of a prudent investment strategy — don’t have all your eggs in one basket.

However, he’s not into renewable energy stocks because their performance is poor. It’s very tough to make money in those stocks because there’s no return on investment. The only money in them is government subsidies which are notoriously unreliable.

Bill is giving his money away, mostly to his foundation which is fighting poverty and disease in Africa.

Sandy asks…

i’d like to invest in water treatment, renewable energy, alternative fuels. recommend any stocks or sites?

would like recommendations on alternative fuel, renewable energy mutual funds and websites that offer these choices

Windmill Farms answers:

Check out the Powershares ETFs PHO (water resources) and PBW (alternative energy). Or Guinness Atkinson alternative energy mutual fund GAAEX.

Linda asks…

Energy stocks, where to invest?

The market is currently down, and i was told it is a GREAT time to get in. I wanted to get into renewable energy stocks. what are some good ones, or where can i go to do some research on them? I don’t have to much to invest with. . Here are some stock i was looking into.

JASO
SOEN
CSUN
CSIQ
ESLR
SOLF
TSL
YGE
FSLR
ESLR
LDK
SPWR
ENER

I found theses stock of a “top solar energy stocks to buy” so what is good. Somebody give me advice, please.

Windmill Farms answers:

The S&P 500 is up 28% from its recent low. And some people say that many stocks are overvalued now due to their high PE ratio.

And renewable energy stocks might not do all that well even if the stock market goes up some more and the economy recovers. Because energy stocks usually do well late in the business cycle, when the demand for energy often outstrips the supply.

I think that investing for the long term now is too risky. Because it’s not yet clear that the economy will get better in any significant way in the near future. And there is a good chance that it might get worse due to rising unemployment and more defaults on mortgages and other debts.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Wind Power

Donald asks…

What percent of wind power does the United States produce?

I have been wondering about the wind power, like windmills lately, here’s some other things i wondered
Where is one of the largest wind farms in the world? how many wind turbines are on that largest wind farm?
which country generated the mostwind energy? How much did they generate in 2003?
which country generated 686 megawatts of wind enerrgy?
U.S. wind energy can power how many U.S. homes?

Windmill Farms answers:

Hey cella, these are pretty primary questions
China is largest producer of wind-power, US follows them with around 40,000 MW generation. ( postiion change happned like in 2010),
US still have the largest wind power farms you can look up rest of the info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Ruth asks…

What are the benefits of wind power compared to nuclear energy?

What are the benefits of wind power compared to nuclear energy and which countries already use wind power?

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind power- no chance of meltdown; less people to manage; no waster
Nuclear- more power; more efficient; more reliable; better overall
Not sure about the countries

Linda asks…

How does wind power relate to life science?

I have a science fair coming up and I need to know how wind power relate to life science.

Windmill Farms answers:

Wind is related to life science because wind power creates energy and energy is what makes the world work now days. Also the wind helps life by moving spores which come from some plants, and if the spores fly then land it will grow a new plant life. Also oxygen and wind to keep us cool when it is humid or hot. Wind helps nature, human kind, animals and different types of life. So i guess since it helps life it’s a part of life. Oh! A clouds too.
P.S. I at least sould get some credit if you us this info.

Joseph asks…

How much it would cost for wind power generator ?

A couple of persons said Solar power generators are costly because of it equipments. How about the wind power generators ? I residing a km near sea shore an there would be some wind at most times.
I am in South India and I need to know the total cost for setting up a wind generator for my home in order to cut down my electricity bill. A set up that can power at least 4 Fans, 4 tube lights (40W) and a computer.

Windmill Farms answers:

Starting from $ 700, Wind Power Generator has a versatility of uses. The wind turbines below are used worldwide for battery charging, home power, and water pumping applications, and range from 400 to 65,000 watts.

Wind Turbines start producing power at 7.5 mph wind speed, and increase their output through 45 mph winds. Higher wind speeds require the blades to be slowed down, to protect the equipment, but are very effective in wind speeds between 7.5 and 45 mph.

Sharon asks…

Does anyone work in the wind power industry?

I am interested in the wind power industry because I have heard it is booming, but I need to find out more about how to get in. Can anyone recommend a school or training?

Windmill Farms answers:

Hey Aaron, I’m kind of surprised that nobody has answered your question here. There are certainly lots of people that work on, or design or build turbines today, one of them should be on Y answers. I don’t work in the field, but we have been powering our home for 12 years with a turbine, and from time to time I get to teach a solar and wind power class at our local school here.

Last time I looked into it, there were only two schools in the US that had college level wind turbine study programs. One of them eludes me, but the other is Kalamazoo Valley Community College near Kalamazoo Michigan. (KVCC) They actually modeled their entire program after one that has been in existence for years in the Netherlands I believe, and you can get a 2 year degree in wind power technology and turbine maintenance there. I’m not sure it is exactly what you are after, but it’s one possible path. I’ve attached a link to an interesting article about their program below.

If you are really interested in this, and don’t know where to go, I’d first suggest getting a subscription to Home Power Magazine, the link is below. It’s inexpensive and quite informative, and in the back is a “calendar” section. Check it out and try to find an energy fair in your area. If you can get to one of those, you’ll meet more people involved in the business in one place than anywhere else in the world. We went to one in Wisconsin 13 years ago, and today our home is completely powered by the wind and sun. Good luck Aaron, and take care, Rudydoo

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Micro Wind Power Plant

Sharon asks…

How old do you think the Earth is, about 6,000 years like the Bible teaches, or billions of years: evolution?

Windmill Farms answers:

Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.
Here is a small part of that truth…

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.
O.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big…
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this…
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Ruth asks…

One of the voices in my head wants to know something about evolution and the female body?

When she began to walk upright, her pelvis became smaller; also, her baby’s head became larger, all thru evolution. This resulted in the untimely death of many human mothers in childbirth, compared to fewer such deaths in the animal kingdom.
So, did she evolve in the wrong way?

Windmill Farms answers:

Time to drag out the usual answer
that’s ok. I like this answer…

Evolution is not a fact. It is based on lies, lies, lies, and more lies. If people would open their eyes and see for them-self, instead of blinding following what they are told, people would see this.
Here is my usual answer to evolution questions…
Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.
Here is a small part of that truth…

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.
O.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big…
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this…
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Lets the thumb downs begin…

Helen asks…

Why cant God and Evolution coexist?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Above is a example of what I mean.

If the big bang theroy is right, and evolution also, how does this disprove a god.If anything it only disproves the 1st chapter of the bible as being figurative.
Isnt it possible that in genesis where it says the earth was void and without form that this couldve been during the destruction of the planet from say a comet.And then when it says god said let there be light, this again could figuratively mean the atmosphere was clouded from debris?Anyway the point is one doesnt exactly disprove the other so why cant they coexist?

Windmill Farms answers:

Evolution is not a fact. It is based on lies, lies, lies, and more lies. If people would open their eyes and see for them-self, instead of blinding following what they are told, people would see this.
Here is my usual answer to evolution questions…
Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.
Here is a small part of that truth…

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.
O.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big…
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this…
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Lets the thumb downs begain…

Daniel asks…

Why do you believe in Evolution?

Windmill Farms answers:

Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.
Here is a small part of that truth…

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.
O.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big…
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this…
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

James asks…

If evolution is true, why have we not evolved bodies that are immortal?

Evolutionist always say everthing has evolved of a period of billions of years. Just like the defenses of the porcupine. Is it finished evolving? If there is no God, than how much longer before we evolve into immortals?
Why would I ask in science? This question is spiritual, not science. Until you prove it is Science FACT.
Than why don’t we die as soon as we are unable to have children any longer.

Windmill Farms answers:

Time to drag out the usual answer
that’s ok. I like this answer…

Evolution is not a fact. It is based on lies, lies, lies, and more lies. If people would open their eyes and see for them-self, instead of blinding following what they are told, people would see this.
Here is my usual answer to evolution questions…
Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.
Here is a small part of that truth…

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.
O.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big…
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this…
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Lets the thumb downs begin…

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Vertical Wind Power Plant

Joseph asks…

Safest way to produce energy?

so apparently fossil fuels creating global warming and nuclear energy is bad. if you were a president trying to get votes, what types of energy would u use and how…

Windmill Farms answers:

If I were president I’d concentrate on where it would be best to do what. For example I live in the wind tunnel (have had tornado touch down on property) where I get a strong south wind and of course the HOT sun 10 + hours a day. Since I am now in the process of building a new home this hits home.
Solar panels are coming down in cost however energy captured during the day has to be stored, like in batteries. If you were to have solar panels on your roof, a solar type heating unit for your hot water heater, energy savings bulbs you’d dramatically reduce your bill. If your in the right area you could have a windmill which generates energy (again to be stored) so there lies the problem most homeowners have to deal with. You’d need a huge battery bank for storage unless you purchased a grid tied invertor that would accept any energy produced at home by home owners, running their meter backwards and eliminating the need for battery storage bank. I’d do good with windmill, vertical axis to eliminate problems with known windmills. But for those in Colorado… Say Static energy from the environment can he harnessed to create energy. Betcha I hear about that one but one of the first power plants that ever existing was ran from capturing and converting static energy.

Personally not to fond of nuclear due to the lack of control regarding the storage of waste. Thermal is very good and can be “operated” by harnessing the “free” clean, energy from the sun. Ie” sterling engines. See green science web site for that info.

To answer your questions specifically however you might search for, “A Practical Guide to Free Energy” by Patrick Kelly you’d find his answer would be Fuel Cells. They seem to need very little energy but once activated they just keep on giving, unlike our batteries but its doubtful most will believe it or that you’ll hear of this.

PS. Nothing to safe working with any form that I’ve played around with. Fortunately so far I’ve just burned up a lot of parts. Better be VERY careful.

Maria asks…

role of energy in development of human society from industrial age to knowledge based society?

Windmill Farms answers:

Energy plays a fundamental role in shaping the human condition. People’s need for energy is essential for survival, so it is not surprising that energy production and consumption are some of the most important activities of human life. Indeed, it has been argued that energy is the key “to the advance of civilization,” that the evolution of human societies is dependent on the conversion of energy for human use.1 Few people have questioned the long-held assumption that standard of living and quality of civilization are proportional to the quantity of energy a society uses. However imprecise it may be, most people still accept the steadfast formula: energy=progress=civilization.2

The widespread belief that energy and civilization are inextricably linked certainly has historical foundation. Throughout history, humans have focused on controlling the energy stores and flows that are part of nature. For tens of thousands of years, people relied solely on the chemical (caloric) energy gained from food that produced the mechanical (kinetic) energy of working muscles. But thanks to human intellect, people were able to unlock and overcome physical limits imposed on their own muscle power “by using tools and harnessing the energies outside their own bodies.”3

The earliest “energy tools” were those used to hunt animals, harvest edible plants, catch fish and fowl, and process and transport foodstuffs. Most of the family structures, societal groupings, and political and economic institutions created over thousands of years focused primarily on the extraction, processing, exchange, and marketing of food, as well as of “fossil and organic energy sources (wood, peat, coal) … Used … For heating, cooking, lighting, or for firing the kilns and furnaces used in smelting ores.”4 The vast array of unique human cultures absorbed the quest for these basic energy resources into the widest range of human activities—rituals, festivals, taboos, myth, dance, games, religion, language, art, and warfare—all of which embody humanity’s cultural values in their most fundamental forms.5 Quite simply, human existence has been dominated by the age-old necessity for energy.

Age of Water Power
Before the modern era, people relied for power on their own muscles, on the muscles of domesticated animals, such as horses and oxen, and on water and wind. People used these energy resources to create a variety of significant landscapes, from agricultural fields and grazing land to mining centers and commercial woodlots, and they built the towns and cities and transportation networks of ancient civilizations. The technologies that relied on these energy resources are familiar to us all: axes, picks, plows, harnesses, wagons and carriages, waterwheels, windmills, and sailing ships.

Europe, which possessed many areas of water-power potential, particularly benefited from harnessing the energy produced by moving water. The vertical waterwheel, invented perhaps two centuries before the time of Christ, spread across Europe within a few hundred years. By the end of the Roman era, waterwheels powered mills to crush grain, full cloth, tan leather, smelt and shape iron, saw wood, and carry out a variety of other early industrial processes. Productivity increased, dependence on human and animal muscle power gradually declined, and locations with good water-power resources became centers of economic and industrial activity.

The historian Terry Reynolds observes: “Water power grew to be a central element in Western technology.”6 During the Middle Ages, hydraulic engineers mounted mills on boats and bridges, and from these evolved hydropower dams to store and develop water pressure and to divert water into power canals and thence onto wheels. By the fifteenth century, large milling complexes in France signaled the reality of industrial dependence on water power. The development of the camshaft and crankshaft allowed water power to be applied to tasks that required a reciprocating motion (e.g., operating trip hammers and blast furnace bellows), which revolutionized the iron industry. The number of watermills in Europe increased steadily. Larger and larger water-powered industrial complexes emerged, culminating in large water-powered cotton mills operated during the 1770s by William Strutt and Richard Arkwright in England.

Meanwhile, the harnessing of wind power to propel sailing ships across wide ocean expanses opened up the Americas to Europe. Colonists brought with them water-powered mills, which appeared from Latin America to Canada. By 1800, citizens of the newly established United States were importing English style textile factories, and within two decades expansive water-powered industrial cities emerged in Lowell, Massachusetts and other New England locations. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, Euro-American industry depended for energy almost entirely on water power.

Age of Steam
The modern era began with the eighteenth century introduction of steam power to English coal mines by Thomas Savery and Thomas Newcomen. Their steam engines and those of James Watt supplanted less geographically flexible water-powered mine pumps. Synergistic relationships between coal mining, the iron industry, and steam power led to advances in steam technology, and by 1800 steam engines joined waterwheels in powering English textile mills. Entrepreneurs found that steam power overcame water power’s geographic inflexibility, the limitation that any one stream could only support so many mills, and waterwheel stoppages and slow downs caused by drought, flooding, and ice. Although water power continued to be the dominant energy resource for manufacturing through much of the nineteenth century, particularly in France and the United States, steam power ultimately proved more flexible and economically efficient.

During the nineteenth century, steam engines improved enormously. American businessmen imported steam power from England, and by the 1840s it began competing successfully with water-powered manufactures. Philadelphia inventor Oliver Evans, famously known for automating water-powered flour milling, patented one of the first successful high-pressure steam engines. His engine and others modeled on it soon drove the riverboats and railroads that characterized America’s nineteenth century transportation revolution. In Philadelphia in 1876, an enormous iconic Corliss steam engine towered over the main exhibition hall and powered the hundreds of machines on display at the Centennial Exhibition.7

The steam engine permanently established the link between fossil energy resources and industrialization.8 England and European countries turned to coal for steam fuel before 1800, and by the mid-nineteenth century Appalachian coal succeeded wood as steam fuel in the eastern United States. On the Pacific Coast, manufacturers and transporters continued to use wood, but they preferred coal and imported it at great cost from as far away as Australia. The scarcity and high cost of good coal on the Pacific Coast combined with discoveries of petroleum in southern California resulted in the development of oil as steam fuel, which unseated coal as steam fuel during the first half of the twentieth century.9

The Electrical Age
Among the technological challenges in using inanimate energy resources is the transmission of power. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, fascination with the phenomenon of electricity captured many people.10 The production of electricity with primary batteries and eventually with electromagnetic induction, the transmission of electricity through copper wires, and the development of electric motors ultimately revolutionized the transmission of power. By the end of the nineteenth century, restrictive and inflexible direct connection of manufacturing machines to waterwheels, windmills, and steam engines by gears, drive shafts, and belts gave way to electrically powered machinery getting its power through wires strung from far away hydroelectric and steam-turbine power plants. The shape and character of factories changed dramatically during the twentieth century, as machines powered by electric motors could be sited almost anywhere.11 Additionally, electric power supplanted horse-drawn and steam-powered street railways with the electric “trolley,” it replaced gas for outdoor lighting, and it replaced kerosene lights and wood and coal stoves and heaters in homes.12

Thomas Edison was especially important in the development of electricity. As noted in these Franklin Institute case studies, “Edison’s innovative approach to invention propelled the development of the electric light plus the generation and distribution system to make it work.” In the 1880s, his incandescent lamp made possible widespread, reliable, commercial indoor lighting, and his Pearl Street central station generating system in Manhattan became the archetype for electric power generation and distribution. Equally significant, Edison mentored a number of other important contributors to electric power technology, among them Frank Sprague, who constructed the first commercially successful electric street railway system in Richmond, Virginia in 1887, and Nicola Tesla, who developed alternating current (AC) power generation.

Edison’s direct current (DC) power system became the initial standard for distributed electricity, powering electric railways and manufacturing motors as well as lighting. Unfortunately, it could not be easily transmitted over long distances, which Tesla’s AC power system achieved. Implemented by Edison’s competitor in electric power, the Westinghouse Company, AC power superseded DC power and made possible the development of large electrical generating plants sited long distances from customers. Although Westinghouse’s harnessing of hydropower at Niagara Falls with Tesla’s polyphase system is perhaps better remembered, developments in AC power transmission from distant Sierra Nevada power sites in California to the coastal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles established the standard in long-distance polyphase electric-power transmission.13

By the early twentieth century, electricity had become the favored method for transmitting energy, but applying it for human uses depended on many scientists and technicians working together. Perhaps Edison’s most important invention was the industrial research laboratory, and by the beginning of the twentieth century, the General Electric Research Laboratory had emerged as a model for advancing science and technology. There, researchers steadily improved the ways in which humankind could apply electricity, and among them William Coolidge stood out. His development of the tungsten filament for Edison’s incandescent lamp and later the X-ray tube earned him a most respected place in the ranks of twentieth century scientists and engineers.

The Nuclear Age
As electricity use became ubiquitous during the twentieth century, the exploitation of energy resources increased enormously. Hydroelectricity continued to play an important role in the modern energy matrix, but accessible water power sites were soon tapped. Engineers steadily improved steam-turbine technology so that more electricity could be generated by smaller quantities of fuel. As the size and efficiency of power plants increased, the cost of electric power dropped dramatically, which stimulated even more consumption of electricity. Fossil fuels—first coal, then oil—became the essential energy resources for electric-power generation.

Unfortunately, during the 1960s, increased efficiencies in electric-power generation leveled off, the cost of electricity began to climb. Moreover, a growing environmental movement attributed acid raid and other negative environmental impacts to the heavy use of fossil fuels. A search for an alternative to fossil-fuel electric-power generation led many people to the atom.

Well back into the nineteenth century, research in physics had led to the discovery of nuclear radiation. Most prominent in this discovery was Marie Curie, whose work “on the spontaneous radiation emitted by uranium compounds” set the stage for subsequent discoveries on atomic structure and the intrinsic power of the atom. The early decades of the twentieth century brought sustained scientific research in atomic physics, particularly in Europe. Italian physicist Enrico Fermi at the University of Rome was prominent among scientists working in this exciting field, and during the 1930s he focused on producing artificial radiation by bombarding uranium atoms with neutrons.

As the European world became more and more unstable with the rise of Nazi Germany, its alliance with Italian fascists, and increasing anti-Semitism, Fermi and other nuclear physicists began leaving their universities and research laboratories for North America. Fermi’s particular circumstance was quite remarkable, for he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1938 and received permission from Italy’s fascist government to go to Stockholm to receive the award. Instead of returning to Italy, however, he and his Jewish wife and children traveled to the United States, where Fermi took a professorship at Columbia University in New York City.

As the world went to war in the 1940s, Fermi and other physicists in Europe and America came to understand that a uranium atom split by a neutron would cause a self-perpetuating chain reaction of atom splitting that would release enormous energy. This process, called nuclear fission, suggested possible military applications, and Fermi and his colleagues at Columbia University joined with Albert Einstein to persuade the U.S. Government to study the idea. Meanwhile, at Columbia, Fermi sought to develop a controlled nuclear fission chain reaction. In 1942, when President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the “Manhattan Project,” Fermi’s work was relocated to the University of Chicago, where in December of that year, he and his team achieved the first controlled nuclear chain reaction.

The work of Fermi and other nuclear physicists led directly to development of the atomic bomb, which the United States twice used against Japan in 1945. In the wake of World War II, the United States created an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to oversee nuclear weapons development as well as to bring nuclear power to peaceful applications. During the 1950s, the AEC worked with public utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California to develop electric power generation using nuclear fission.

Nuclear energy soon emerged as one of the most touted solutions to the electrical world’s energy problem. Industrialized nations everywhere constructed plants to meet ever-multiplying demands for electric power, but nuclear power was not without its drawbacks. But by the end of the 1970s, seismic safety became a substantial enough issue for Californians that a moratorium was placed on building new nuclear power plants and the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Pennsylvania galvanized nuclear power opponents. These incidents combined with the unresolved solution to the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste and extended construction times to effectively end new nuclear power plant construction in the United States. In 1986 the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine and subsequent widespread radiation poisoning, put Italy, Germany, and other countries on the path toward ending reliance on nuclear power. While nuclear energy has not gone away and is still seen by many people as one of the best solutions to human energy needs, other energy resources such as solar, wind, and biomass also offer promise.

No matter where people find the energy to support their cultures and societies, it is plain that human life has been dominated by the age-old necessity for energy. The Energy Case Studies presented here celebrate the unique ingenuity underscoring humankind’s scientific and technological quest to harness inanimate energy to its use. Imagine, if you can, just what the next steps in our energy history will be.

Linda asks…

I need a Geography Energy Project idea…?

Hello! My name is Natalie, and I’ve got this huge geography enegry project to complete, and I’m in grade nine. If you have any past experience, or ideas, please give! I really need it.You’ll get 100000 points:(
It has to be a project/experiment that moves. It can be anything on:
Solar Power (Active, Passive)
Wave and Wind Power
Biomass
Hydro Plants
Energy Saving Devices
Vertical Farm
Geothermal
Green Roofs
Food and Energy consumption
Glass
Propane.
Basically, and energy topic. Its for alot for my report card. If you have an Idea on Solar Power, that would be great! Cause I had this one where you shine your light on smething. And then smething happens..XD Please Hellpppp! Thanks so much for trying anyways. Please hellppp…

Windmill Farms answers:

You might try here http://education.usgs.gov/index.html

Sandy asks…

Can Buliding 400,000 Windmills Help Solve Global Warming & Our Energy & High Gasoline Price Crisis ?

Comprehensive Energy Plan To Lower Gasoline Prices and Help Solve Global Warming

This is how we will do it. And this why we will do it.

This country has so much under used industrial capacity in our Auto Plants, Airplane Plants, Steel Plants and Electronics Plants to make America Energy Independent in 2 to 5 years. We can build enough windmills and solar power and wave generation energy plants to replace 90% of all of the electricity generated by COAL and NATURAL GAS.

For under $400 Billion we could build 400,000 windmills.

The Coal and Natural Gas saved by Green Replaceable Elecrrical Generation can now be used to make fuel for cars, trucks, busses, boats and airplanes, and or plastics, chemicals, fertilizers and pharmacuticals.

We need a comprehensive plan that puts America back to work in endeavors that benefit 99% of America and Cleans Up Our Environment.

Howard Scott Pearlman

Windmill Farms answers:

Not going to debate your figures, they may not add up, but the sentiment is clear. 400,000 windmills is not that many, not when spread over the whole USA. Do some sums, how many per sq km? And you mention other energies, so guess wave machines and geothermal etc can all go in the mix. All good ideas that will in time be built. Let us all hope that it is sooner rather than too late.

Wind turbines in Manhattan? What a wonder full idea, on top of buildings where wind speeds are higher and they are out of the way. A bit of clever design and they will not look out of place, put them into vertical shafts/like cooling tower affairs, also reduces bird strike.

400,000 x 10MW =4,000,000 MW, a reasonable power contribution.
And converting coal to gas is cheap, but gas to liquid fuels, not quite so cheap. Better to come up with a cleaner more sustainable alternative.

Michael asks…

Energy Efficient House Questions? Help me be green.?

i’m doing a project on energy efficient homes, and i need a lot of tips.
i have to build a model so i want some suggestions on what to include on it.
i’m already going to have solar panels & a wind turbine, trees, double paned windows, efficient bulbs, lots of insulation…
but i need more ideas, help!
(also, is there a certain shape of house that is more energy efficient?)
and i know windows should be on the south side of the house…does anyone have any other types of tips such as that?

Windmill Farms answers:

Add a large pond in the back then you can talk about how it’s more efficient for air-conditioners to reject heat out to water then to air. You can also talk about “natural swimming pools” where it’s an ecosystem that cleans the water by having plants in the shallow regeneration area and circulating the water through sand and the regeneration area. Such pools can actually keep the water cleaner and healthier than municipal tap water. Of course some kind of windmill or solar panel would be needed to keep the water flowing in the pond since it is an ecosystem that depends on it.

If your yard is large enough and you have different elevations, you could have multiple ponds and pump water from the lower one to the upper one to store energy from the windmill (use a windmill that pumps directly instead of generate electricity) and then generate electricity by running the water through a micro turbine back down to the lower pond.

Keep in mind that if you put fish in the pond, you need a much larger regeneration area to clean up the ammonia from the fish.

You could show grass growing through holes in the driveway and talk about the ground absorbs water and how pavement prevents that and how that could be solved by having porous pavement or holes in the pavement since the pavement is only there to support the weight of the car (you see this in California all the time).

If you have areas of the roof that are flat or are patios, put grass and trees there and talk about how a living roof moderates the micro-climate around the house and keeps everything cool.

You may want to have part of your house earth sheltered perhaps with a berm or nested into a hill on the north side and talk about thermal mass and underground homes.

You could have living walls inside integrated into the ventilation system to keep the air clean, remove CO2 and produce oxygen. These are walls sculpted out of lava rock with plenty of places for plants to grow and water cascading down like a waterfall and a small pond at the base, the air is vented to the backside of the wall and blows gently through the porous lavarock, particulates are taken out by the water, and the plants absorb CO2 and produces oxygen.

You could have freestanding vertical living walls outside to help purify the air around the house and to moderate the micro-climate.

If you have a courtyard, you put in a wind tower to direct wind down to the courtyard to keep it cool like they did in the ancient middle east.

You could have a heat chimney like the ancient Romans did where a chimney painted black on the side facing the sun would heat air within the chimney stack by solar power and the rising hot air would pull air out of the house, another inlet pipe would run underground from a vent in the yard over into the house and the air pulled through that vent would be cooled by the thermal mass of the ground, of course gratings and screens will be needed to keep the critters out and if you really wanted it to be authentic, it could be big enough to crawl through so that you had an escape route out to a hidden part of the yard.

Again if you have a courtyard, you could keep an open cistern in it as a pond collecting rain water with some water plants to keep the water clean and fresh, it would moderate the temperature in the courtyard and be a source of drinking water. If you really want to be fancy you could circulate the water with that of the natural swimming pond/pool to take advantage of the larger regeneration are to keep the water clean.

You could have a cistern buried in the yard, the top would be like a patio and you could capture rain water in it to water the yard and perhaps use as non-potable water perhaps as gray water. You could have a separate cistern for gray water.

Solar hot water heater is a no brainer as it’s inexpensive and pays for itself very quickly. If you’re in an area with a winter, it could be part of an active solar home heating system. If you have a water brine gas fired absorption chiller for air conditioning, you could use the solar hot water as a preheat for the regeneration stage thereby requiring less gas for your AC. Such an air-conditioner system would use 85% less electricity than a conventional one even without the preheat.

You could put in rain gardens around the home so that runoff that you don’t capture for the cisterns would be detained long enough to be absorbed into the ground instead of being surface runoff.

If you have enough land, include an herb garden, an outdoor kitchen perhaps with a solar oven, you can run a gas range from a downdraft wood gasifier with propane or natural gas backup for the impatient, a vegetable garden and a fruit orchard.

Power an outdoor grill and an outdoor firepit from the downdraft gasifer. Downdraft gasifiers are a good way to dispose of garbage though I would use mostly yard debris and wood especially if running a cooking range and grill from it

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Is Wind Power Green Pros And Cons

Joseph asks…

what is green technology?

i need the aims and objectives of green technology….
also does solar power, wind energy, hydropower etc fall under green technology??
thankyou

Windmill Farms answers:

Being green today means being more environmentally friendly, for example reducing carbon footprint, pollutant chemicals and energy consumption. If something is made using green technology it means less energy has gone into the production and less pollutants are released by the process. Green technology can also be used to describe things like electric cars, solar panals and wind turbines, these are products that will produce and use a ‘cleaner energy’. For example electric is a cleaner fuel source than petrol for cars and instead of producing fumes the waste will be water and co2. However the government makes green materials and technology sound like the answer to the worlds problems when shouting about global warming but infact they bring their own set of very different problems. Charging an electric car will take around 13hours and constant charging will mean you will probably have to invest in a new battery every other year, and considering they cost around £7000 each, it is definatly not a cheap option. There are pros to green technology but unfortunatly everyone seems to ignore the cons when trying to sell their ideas

Sharon asks…

A list a pros and cons of windmills anyone?

can anyone tell me the list of pros and cons of windmills??

Windmill Farms answers:

Pros:
- pollution-free “green” energy source
- wind is a renewable energy source
- do not require much (or any) electrical supply
- no visual, ground or air pollution

cons:
- useless without wind
- do not generate enough power to replace nuclear or petroleum-based power sources
- take up more space and give out less power compared to other energy sources
- high installation cost (you need a transformer and storage cell for atleast every 3 windmills if not less)

Sandy asks…

Suprisingly nuclear power is the way to go?

Apparently the only way to stop global warming is to completely switch from fossil fuels to nuclear power ,because nuclear power contributes to global warming no where near(and i mean a only a fraction) as much as burning fossil fuels. Although nuclear power shouldn’t be used forever, it should just be used as a ‘band aid’ to mask and stop the process of global warming until we figure out a new ‘greener’ effective and sufficient power source.?
And from what i’ve heard fossil fuels can not be refined to burn cleaner and cannot be reused, but nuclear power can be reused to some degree if we are willing to make an effort to reuse it. So really while nuclear power has been condemmed in so many countries it seems that fossil fuels are doing alot more damage.
at n_the_s answer. We cant use just environmently friendly ways to make energy because at the moment it just doest wouldnt create enough energy for the world, and to make room for windmills and big enough solar panels to supply the entire earth with enough power you would need to rip down large amounts of bush and rainforests just to have enough room to get enough energy,which is not environmently friendly.

Windmill Farms answers:

Nuclear Pros and Cons
PROS
1. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else’s problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth’s crust (about the same as tin)
4. Economical – operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable – Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors, Much higher than solar or wind
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates high paying, skilled jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record.
11, Does not require back-up and storage facilities like solar and wind.
12. More economical than solar per Mw produced.
13. Much smaller footprint, takes up less land than Solar or wind.
14. May be located almost anywhere on earth, most efficient near a cooling water source.
CONS
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available. (we should build one)
4. High cost of personnel.(high paying jobs in my community)
5. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism. (minimal risk, easier to refine ore)
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100′s of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant “in my backyard”.
I have confidence that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be smart enough to treat the nuclear “waste” as a valuable resource or at least smart enough to handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

Richard asks…

Pros and Cons of Cities in Canada?

I am doing a project for geography. We need to find connections that we have to Canada. I choose these places: Ottawa, Niagara falls, Quebec, Montreal, Edmonton, Halifax. I need to know some pros and cons about these places. If you know some geographical pros and cons about these places (Weather, landforms, features, etc.) If you know any of these pros and cons for any of these places it would help a lot.
And also Vancouver

Windmill Farms answers:

For a geography project you may be missing what the teacher is looking for. For Niagara Falls look at the power plants on both sides of the river for example.

The weather. Like those reports in Chicago Cold wind from Canada. The Alberta Clipper . In Canada it is called the Pineapple Express . Starts in the ocean and then crosses the land.

Midwest the RED RIVER starts in Canada goes into the US and then returns to Canada Where do you put the flood control things. Flood Saskatchewan save North Dakota Flood North Dakota save Manitoba. The Great Lakes pollution in one country affects the other. Shipping from the Ocean to the American cites goes through Canada.

If you want to compare cities with similar geography . You need to use city pairs like Vancouver Seattle.. Calgary Denver and so on.

Edmonton the greenest City in Winter in North America. Look it up.

Montreal an Island

Your question is a little confusing when asking about Geographical connections. You may want to look at just an east to west comparison of the two countries. Prairies in the middle mountains on the west side and so on. Are you maybe looking for Economic connections The information you are looking for may be on the city websites.
Weather charts here with history scroll down

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/

Scroll down on this site It may be what you are looking for to get started

http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blccanada.htm

EDIT your question and you can get a much better answer.

Carol asks…

Pros and Cons of Australia?

Ok, in the cons could you mention more like the problems with natural hazards and also if is it true that 2/3 australians get skin cancer before the age of 70.. and if the heat is extreme in australia..

also consider in the pros or cons about the personality and friendliness of the people compared to the US and Europe.. etc..

Windmill Farms answers:

It is absolutely true that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. In fact, one in 2 Australians will develop some form of skin cancer during their lifetime.

About natural disasters:
Australia is not immune to natural disasters despite the fact they don’t occur with frequency. Due the vast dimensions of the country, some of this events are secluded to one or another region and don’t affect the country as a whole. Some storms are even welcome by surfers and farmers but some others are very dangerous and had caused death in the past.

‘The Drought’ is without doubt one of the most complicated problem Australia has. Because the vast areas of deserts, and very low annual precipitation, the country is very dry, except by a stripe of green vegetation nearby the coast. Australia in the distant past, had many parts of its territory submerged in the ocean. The result is that the soil is salty bringing many problems for vegetation and agricultural activities. Water is the key factor in Australia and a possible problem for its growth. Desalinization of water is expensive and in case the population doubles today, it will no water for everybody. It is not a surprise to have water restriction in many Australian cities during long periods without rain. Also, due the low humidity of the air, every summer Australia has to face its worst enemy, fire.

‘Forests Fires’ are among the natural disasters that cause big losses both humans and material. These fires can break out by many reasons, but one of the main causes is the dry air that during summer blows from the deserts to the coast. As temperatures in the deserts get close to 50 degrees Celsius, the wind direction changes, bringing very dry and hot air to the coastal vegetation. This vegetation under a very strong sun and with the help of the hot wind, spark an expontaneous combustion that in one minute can consume a whole block. Cigarettes buts are another factor, as well as agricultural fires that quickly goes out of control. During summer months entire regions may be on total fire ban. That means you can’t produce any outdoor fire even to cook.

‘Cyclones’ in Australia are frequent but fortunately they don’t occur to often in very populated areas. Mostly of the areas affected are on the Northern region of Australia and it very rare when they make their way down South. The Northeast and Northwest area of the Gulf of Carpenteria, have very warm sea water temperatures during summer time. All the time these waters rises above 26° C. It is like a cyclone to happen, just waiting for the proper wind. Most of the summers in Northern Australia produces easily 28 degrees of sea water temperature. Many cyclones are formed, but not with power enough to cause destruction. The South of Australia, don’t receive cyclones, but once in a while it receives very powerful storms from the Indian Ocean.

And now about Australian people:
Australians are mostly europeans as well but I do find Australians are more friendly and welcoming than Americans. I guess culture difference. Americans tend to be more to themselves.
Quality of life wise, certainly the Aussie life is more relax and take it easy style. And the social game is more well played in Australia. I would certainly encourage people to go to Australia and become a dinki-di Aussie.. Like myself..

Powered by Yahoo! Answers