MGPC Sustainability Blog

I have been trying not to get political on this blog, but this was the last straw. Since the House failed to approve extension of the ITC, or Investment Tax Credit, the Senate had to package it into the abominable $ 700 billion bank socialization package. The Renewable Energy Tax Credit is the incentive package that the Senate Republicans blocked passage of eight times, leaving billions of dollars of renewable energy projects in limbo.

We waste billions on ineffective Ethanol and farming subsidies at a time when food prices are rising out of control. We continue to support big oil with tax breaks, effectively subsidizing the purchase of foreign oil from countries who are hostile to our interests, but we cannot find a reason to support alternative energy, which would be a predominantly DOMESTIC industry and find it necessary to insert it into a bank bailout package.

Countless solar installation contractors, solar panel manufacturers, wind turbine manufacturers (anybody watching General Electric’s stock price dropping?), consultants, and integrators, among others, will lose their jobs because of the suspended projects.

If you were waiting to buy an expensive solar panel for your home and did not know if the $ 2,000 capped Federal Tax Credit would be applicable next year, would you still order the system installed, or would you wait for Congress to announce the extention of the tax credits beyond their January 1, 2009 expiration, knowing you probably cannot install the panels on time this year to qualify for the existing credit?

The United States is half-way decided on spending $ 700 billion on the banking bailout, just waiting for House approval now. This will just aggravate some of our biggest problems at present: National debt and balance of trade. We should be working to close those gaps before our government goes bankrupt. Let’s stop sending our wealth to the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela, none of whom are our true allies, and get a sensible domestic energy policy on track.

There is strength in numbers. If you have not done so already, see our main page and click on “Take Action.” There you will see a link to the Pickens Plan. Sign up on their mailing list for more information. So far, The Pickens Plan is the best idea anyone has proposed for investing in our domestic infrastructure, creating jobs, and weaning ourselves from the addictive substance we have been importing into our country for billions of dollars per year.

Take action now! Sign up for the Pickens Plan!

The Maryland Energy Adminstration has announced $ 1.5 million in loan funding to support projects that reduce energy use.

Conditions:

1) Participants have until November 2008 to apply for the loan;

2) The project must pay for itself in energy savings within 7 years.

The Baltimore Business Journal has complete details here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/08/25/daily3.html?f=et52&ana=e_du

Even better news: Maryland Green Power Co. sells products and designs systems with the goal of a less than 7 year payback, in compliance with the MEA requirements. Many projects achieve 2-4 year payback.

For information, please contact Maryland Green Power Co. at:

Columbia Satellite Sales Office

Phone: 443-864-3072

Fax: 443-927-9018

info@marylandgreenpower.com

This inventor’s webpage has a great synopsis of why this technology beats single rotor wind turbines in power output, especially at low wind speeds, so we won’t rehash the arguments here.

I invite our readers to read about this innovative idea at the inventor’s site:

http://www.speakerfactory.net/wind_old.htm

I’ll just pose some questions here in the hope that what remains of my skepticism can be banished:

1) Since the flexible axis bends under the weight of the rotors, rotation of such axis would cause the direction of torque caused by downward pressure on the pivot point to continuously change. Would this accelerate a stress fracture and eventually cause the axis to snap? It will be interesting to observe the longevity of the multi-rotor design, especially as the technology is scaled up to produce greater power output, thus increasing rotor size, and/or number of rotors mounted on a single axis.

2) The long arms of the axis rotate to automatically position the rotors correctly into the wind. This huge circumference of rotation produces a footprint much larger than a single rotor wind turbine would create. With a multi-megawatt single rotor wind turbine, the next turbine can be placed a relatively shorter distance away. To scale the multi-rotor wind turbine to match the megawatt output of the single rotor design would make that circumference even larger. The question is, if in a given plot of land the maximum density of wind turbines of either design were to be installed, which design would achieve the largest power output per square-unit of land utilized? In other words, which design conserves the most land?

Finally, I pose an observation in the form of a question requiring further empirical study: Since the wind flux of this turbine is smaller, that is, the rotors pierce a smaller cross-section of the wind field, would you think that this technology can potentially cause less harm to migrating birds that the current wind turbine with its long blades? In other words, a bird has a better chance of flying around this apparatus? (Not that I am that worried about birds getting caught in the old design, since wind turbines probably cause less destruction of life per unit of power output than a coal-burning power plant does, and yes, I mean people, whose number of deaths caused by respiratory problems is increasing. Of course, there are those in the green movement who value animal life more than human life, but don’t count me among them. A small number of birds is a worthy sacrifice for the good otherwise being achieved. If you don’t agree, go ahead and flame me!)

We would welcome the designers’ thoughts on this subject, as these questions were meant not to criticize what might be a breakthrough design, but to spark more discussion and even offer the designers an opportunity to further present the advantages of their invention.

I hope that this concept, or another one like it, helps the United States take the lead in renewable energy. It seems that we are late to start solving a problem, but we excel when we take it seriously. I hope we can congratulate these people someday soon.