So once big government starts taxing us into oblivion for air travel, you'll finally wake up?

what the fuck are you spewing on about?

LW's implying there is something ironic about you being so hardcore about reducing carbon emissions, but want to make an exception about something that effects your happiness, in this case travel by plane.

What he is misremembering (thanks for that word Clintons!!) is that airplanes are not big emitters when compared to more common things like cattle and power generation, and that seeing the world generally increases people's desires to protect it and generally live more peaceful lives.

New Modular Wind Turbines Snap to Buildings to Blow Away the Competition
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 12, 2008 9:44 AM

While some wind power may just blow, Aerovironment looks to be sleek and stylish

Wind power is an oft maligned source of alternative energy. One common complaint aired is that it’s not cost/resource effective. On a similar track, people often accuse it of producing too little power to be helpful. Finally, some accuse it of being too obtrusive. Even some environmentalists knock wind power for allegedly killing birds that fly into the slowly spinning metal turbine blade.

While it can't change such opinions overnight, Aerovironment is looking to slowly warm people to wind power by providing direct solutions to the frequent criticisms. And in the process, it hopes to transform the face of modern cities around the world.

Aerovironment produces building-mounted turbines, smaller than those typically seen on wind farms. By mounting the turbine structure to the tops of buildings, the benefits are twofold. First, the cost in resources of building a pole to support the turbine is eliminated. Secondly, the turbines can be elevated much higher, exposing them to stronger winds.

The nearly silent turbines snap onto the parapet of urban structures, forming a design that Aerovironment calls ‘Architectural Wind’. The rows of turbines not only catch cross currents, but also the frequent currents that develop up the side of buildings. The result is a 30 percent increase in energy production and even better, a great savings in hassle, in that the turbines are quick to snap in.

While the system is extremely well designed and efficient, many will be drawn to its style. The system's curvy design looks more like a modern art sculpture than a cutting edge alternative energy design. This in turn adds to the urban appeal. Part of the structure even serves another utilitarian use -- the large metal plate over the turbine acts as a bird shield, in an effort to minimize avian casualties.

Aerovironment describes their product stating, "Architectural Wind is designed to install easily onto the building parapet, operating in plain sight as an attractive complement to the building’s architecture. Additionally, based on its proprietary system design, Architectural Wind turbines rotate at low wind speeds, resulting in a form of ‘kinetic architecture’ that communicates clearly the generation of clean energy. Working alone or in tandem with other renewable energy technologies, Architectural Wind is designed to offer an attractive ROI and cost per kW of installed capacity."

A module weighs 200 lbs, allowing relatively easy installation, but also ensuring that it won't blow away. They measure 4 feet tall by 4 feet wide. Installations start at 6 kW of power production and can be scaled up to produce much more. Almost any rooftop is suitable to the nonintrusive installation. The product is in development, but the company hopes to mass produce the new turbines on a large scale, making them relatively affordable, and ensuring the systems turn a profit in energy costs.

While wind farms leave some with little to be excited about, Aerovironment's new approach seems an intriguing fit to bring wind power to an urban atmosphere and start cutting costs.

The world needs exceptions. I groan about moms driving around Hummers, but have no problems with stretch Hummer limos. Why? Because people use the stretch Hummer limos for rare, special occasions. There might be one dude in all of the US that uses one daily. That doesn't have the same impact as someone using a Hummer to drive their kids around and commute in from the suburbs every day.

Why should rare special occassions be the acception? The way I see it, if the government decides that something is necessary, then you guys should all be satisfied with the decision when it comes to global warming no matter what. It doesn't matter what board I'm on, liberals do not have a problem with regulation until it personally effects them.

And no, it's not about me "forgetting that airplanes are more efficient than hummers." What about mother fucking CFL's? You tell me, do you think I burn more fossil fuels with my incandescent lightbulbs then compared to my air mileage? In the past year I've done Rochester-JFK-Denver(roundtrip) Buffalo-Detroit-Nashville, Nashville-BWI-Buffalo, Rochester Orlando (round trip), Rochester Orlando then Orlando-Atlanta-Rochester, Buffalo-Dulles-Rome-Addis-Djibouti (round trip.)

In the name of the environment. It is okay for me to do that. But...I gotta have CFL's? What?

I don't want them regulating CFL's, because it's a just a baby step before they start regulating my air travel.

well, i said travel in general. i never mentioned air travel. you make an excellent point though, and further, as i said, what else are we to do while we haven't got a real alternative, while we're better putting our resources into things we do have alternatives for like stationary energy, and when airplane contrails may actually have a cooling effect?

That's totally awesome.

Thanks for this article. I believe it is ideas like this, which are practical and feasible, that will make the most impact. In order for the environmental movement to gain better traction and truly impact the world, it must find creative, simple, and cost-effective ways of making our world a better place to live in. We all understand the major steps that could be taken, but very few understand the consequences to their own personal lives that will follow and the shear immensity of the changes economically. Should we all stop using fossil fuels immediately? Maybe, but no one is going to do that, nor do they necessarily want to. Most people are not willing to accept such changes, and are generally quite disinterested in working any harder in their lives than they already do. Small but effective steps must be taken first. Sell them to people. People are often quite dumb, and a good sales pitch will win over many. Sell the movement as not only a good idea, but something that will make their lives better and easier. I believe the greatest agents of change for a cleaner environment will be those that not too many people even notice as they will work behind the scene.

LW is 100% right on this page.

it's a great idea, and should be done, but i don't believe these are the kinds of things which will make the most impact. utility scale is where the real changes need to be made and the greatest impacts will be felt.

Laura, this is where we differ on approaches. But I take comfort in the fact that we have similar goals. I think you are right on the scale of impact, but often times such large scale changes can be a hard sell to people. That being said, those changes will need to be made. Perhaps it would help to aid the adjustment to start on the small scale, and make concern about climate change more palatable and "everyday" to the masses. Seeing small, effective, and efficient ideas such as the one above may help the entire movement along by bringing it to the people. Not everyone sees this issue the same as many do on here. Many are unwilling to change, because it involves change and a perceived loss of income or comfort. You know this does not have to be the case. But how do we form a bridge between the grand scale ideas of addressing climate change and those who do not understand what is happening and are unwilling to make changes? I believe that education helps, tied to a solid marketing plan to make it seem like these changes are not impossible and can even make our lives both more profitable and comfortable.

i agree, and i think these measures are very very important, it's just the old argument about personal responsibility for climate change. the question is, is it counterproductive to encourage people to reduce their own emissions by turning off the lights and so on, because this runs the risk of them thinking that's all that's needed and that large scale changes and government regulation get let off the hook.
i don't agree with what i'm calling the counter productive hypothesis. i think that personal responsibility is important for the reasons you listed above. education above all.

I'm still questioning the large impact many say humanity plays in global warming. The fact that glaciers have spread and retreated several times in history tells me it's a natural part of our world.

I'm here too.

Although I do believe in the need to, at least to some extent, change our consumption of energy, but not necessarily for the environment's sake, simply to avert a crisis with oil, and other non-renewable resources.

Al Gore is still struggling to limit his personal energy use. If it is tough for him, it might be considered to be tough for all of us. However, I am not sure that is the case. Regardless of party affiliation, I am always very skeptical and wary of politicians and their respective "causes".



http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article ... cle_id=764

i'm not sure this tells the whole story. energy usage isn't really the end game here, greenhouse gas emissions are. so perhaps his consumption has increased, but it's now drawing on his solar panels and such? also, we don't have any idea what he's doing in that house to use so much energy. i agree, it does seem like a lot, but there's no itemisation for us to look at. further, this group does not disclose where their funding comes from, which is always something i find interesting when they go out of their way to discredit those who would support action on climate change. also, i believe this group's lead guy comes from an exxon funded right wing think tank... not that that has anything to do with anything, right?

I think it opens up conversation on the matter, that much is true. As for their intentions, I would agree in absolute that there are likely political motives spurring their actions against the former Vice President. I cannot speak further on the details in the article, only that even Mr. Gore has trouble conserving energy, as passionate as he is about living green.

one could argue this reinforces the point for utility scale action. we can't solve this problem as individuals, rather we need to act collectively. however, that doesn't absolve us of personal responsibility either.

I find it interesting when people attack sources and who finances research groups when they have nothing to stand on when it comes to defending information.

Don't kid yourself. It's not just about carbon emissions. What about all those precious natural resources it took to produce all those solar panels, and that geothermal generator? I'm sure he's still drawing off of the power grid as I don't think there's a string of household solar panels that could make that kind of power. So let's say he's using hydroelectric power. Well gosh, those block up streams, ruin erosion patterns, cripple natural fisheries, and just generally make a mess out of natural ecosystems.

Al Gore will tell you how to live. He'll tell you it'll cost 45 trillion dollars. He tells us what cars we need to drive, that we personally need to cut our energy consumption, what lightbulbs we need. Then he goes and does this shit. He tells to sacrafice...he doesn't. He makes millions of dollars peddling a farce. Installing this crap is a drop in the bucket to him. So it's real easy for him to continue living lavishly, while he tells us we should live with less.

When will people get it...