Matthew's Comments

Ok, I'm a layman. I feel I need to ask the obvious question, to which I'm sure there is a valid answer, but why do the transformers need to be powered when the turbine is not generating? Seems that there would be significant demand for a product or design that would de-energize the transformer until the turbine needed to come on-line. Obviously there are electrical needs for the monitoring equipment on-site, but that can easily be dealt with either by a much smaller secondary transformer, or some other type of on-site energy generation like PV. Just seems to me that if the backup power charge is such a big factor in the economics of a wind farm, someone would come up with a solution to eliminate it.

Hema,

You can get a list of future events -- including conferences -- by going to the Events section of this site. You can have them sorted by either type or date. Additionally, the News Letter features coming events if you are subscribed to that.

Based on the corrected PR, it is supposed to be "8,000 mcf."

http://ir.environmentalpower.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214386

Matthew

Thanks for the comments folks, location has been added in the intro paragraph.

"A 'number of technical difficulties'" IMHO means that mounting small wind turbines onto a building is just a dumb idea. They throw out the rules of wind, one of them being that in order to remove the influences of turbulence you need to install a wind turbine 30 feet higher than any surrounding obstacles within 300-500 feet. Additionally, since they are small turbines, they don't produce very much energy in typical wind speeds (forget at their rated speed -- how often does 27 mph happen?). And have you ever heard a small wind turbine when it gets hit with a gust of wind? Very loud and annoying because they're inherently high-rpm designs. Additionally, by tacking the things onto a dwelling, you just subjects the inhabitants to the high-pitched frequencies the turbines produce -- when they're actually creating any useable power.

I predict that when they install these units, they're not going to perform well, and will ultimately be removed.

What they need to do is talk to Proven (come on, it's a Scottish company folks!) and put up bigger units on properly spec'd towers, which can provide significant useable power to the community's grid. Additionally, put PV on the roof. Sure, there's not as much insolation from the sun that far north as in other more southern locations, but it'll be money better spent than tiny, ineffective wind turbines.

I think the sentence "...will be refueled at NextEnergy's new hydrogen fueling station." answers that (end of 3rd 'graph).

Now, where the hydrogen fueling station gets its hydrogen from is a whole different story.

As someone who lived down canyon from Aspen for a couple years, I've been impressed with the lead that Aspen Ski Co. has taken in environmental concerns, ever since they started running their groomers on B20. I've also spent many years involved in the ski industry, and worry about the fact that future generations might not know what snow is. There are other ski companies who are also seeing how vital the survival of the industry depends on dealing with global warming, but there needs to me more commitment by eastern companies.

I'd love to see areas like Aspen, Telluride and Vail, who are actively pursuing environmental mitigation projects, to start taking a more serious roll in pushing other ski industry giants into making similar commitments.

Correction brought to our attention by:

Mr. Pierre de Ruvo                                                 Dr. Peter F. Varadi

Executive Secretary IECEE                                   Chairman, PV GAP

 

Contrary to the published information the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is not providing certification and CE is not a certification at all but a compulsory "MARKING" (and not a Mark) that is a company declaration presuming conformity of the relevant product to the relevant European Directive. Certification is provided by the International Electrotechnical Commission System for Conformity Testing and Certification of Electrical Equipment (IECEE) (www.iecee.org). Based on the IECEE certification the Global Approval Program for Photovoltaics (PV GAP) (www.pvgap.org) is providing a Quality Mark for photovoltaic components. Several PV products already have the IECEE certification and license to display the PV GAP PV Quality Mark, but at the moment no PV product of Solar Integrated Technology (SIT) has either an IECEE certification or a license to display the PV GAP PV Quality Mark.

This idea leaves me a little cold, since it's trying to fix a problem which shouldn't exist. While in concept it's a great idea, there is already a technology that has been around for years that is actually just as good, if not superior: inverters and good old lead-acid batteries! Why? Fuel cells are expensive, new technology, and - if I read this correctly - in this application uses diesel (I assume after reforming it). This means - hello - it's using diesel! Sure, far better than an huge idling internal combustion engine, but there are already many big rigs out there with 1.0 - 5.0 kW Xantrex/Trace/Heart/Vanner/etc. inverters which function just fine off an auxiliary LE battery bank. The bank is charged when the engine is running (during travel) and provides plenty of power for everything but A/C. The only time it's "using" diesel is the parasitic load the charging puts on the engine. My big question is, will the fuel cell have enough power for air conditioning, which is a big deal for truckers.

Peace,
Mateo