Graffiti Part I

Ladies & Gentlemen,

As many of you know, I grew up in the Bronx in New York City. For many years of my live I was completely used to graffiti on buildings, trains, busses and pretty much anything you can imagine.

When you moved on up to White Plains and so forth, you were paying to get away from the crime, the grit and the graffiti. The Bronx and many other boroughs were bombarded with graffiti but that was just NYC.

The following three posts is NOT New York City! It is the Downtown Plaza in the City of Salisbury. You know the place, where you pay double taxation and get one of the shittiest Police Forces who refuse to recognize there are Gangs in this City and instead they demand you remove your graffiti within hours or they'll start fining you.

Several buildings on the Downtown Plaza were ruined last night as the Gangs destroyed these buildings and any hope for a future within the Downtown area from here on out. When you drive on Rt. 50 into Salisbury you see billboard sized graffiti all over these buildings. They got onto roof's and painted areas no one could even believe they could get to.

The Police were called in and one Officer arrived. When he saw just how massive the graffiti was throughout the Plaza he called for backup and someone with a zoom camera. An hour or more later, backup arrived. The Officer, (a volunteer fireman himself since age 16 in the City of Salisbury) called the Fire Department so they could bring ladders and access every rooftop to see if there was any evidence. The Fire Department REFUSED to come out!

Nevertheless, the Idiots left cans of spray paint and they were able to bag them for fingerprints. The damage can clearly be seen in the following photos and I have a message for the following people.

Barrie Tilghman, Chief Webster, Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Kiss My As*! You lousy pieces of sh*t! You refuse to pay your Police Officers the proper pay to PROTECT the citizens from this kind of abuse and instead you sit back laughing that this happened to someone like me and not YOU! Chief, I don't blame you for not wanting to live in the City of Salisbury! Nevertheless, to watch YOUR City fall apart like this and there's never been an ounce of news that the Police have arrested ONE Gang Member for graffiti spells out just how lousy you Idiot's are at what you're paid to do! YOU SUCK at what you do and the people of Salisbury simply deserve better.

That being said, kiss my a*s when it comes to cleaning it up! I pay enough taxes in this lousy City, YOU CLEAN IT UP! Maybe if YOU were responsible for cleaning it up, perhaps you'd stop this crime? Instead you enforce us to clean it up in a matter of days and all we're doing is cleaning up YOUR lack of doing your job. FINE ME, I don't care any more! This graffiti will stay up until we have answers and someone is caught. I want a reminder left up there for everyone to see just how badly you suck at what you do.

I have had ENOUGH of the crap in Salisbury. Do something about it or take me to court. Till then, get a scrub brush yourself and clean up the mess YOU created!

Graffiti Part II

Graffiti Part III

BREAKING NEWS ON CHIEF WEBSTER

Chief Webster has just purchased a Mac Mansion in White Haven, ON THE WATER!

That's right Folks. The Chief wanted to make sure his entire grossly underpaid Staff came to realize that he is the man. Along with $700.00 suits, it seems that Chief Webster, (along with the Mike Dunn massive renovations to his home recently and the Mayor who moved on up to a much nicer pad) is proving he too has fallen into mega bucks and will be living with the elite. I guess he wanted to save milage on his cruiser to get to work every day, NOT!

2 Year Old Baby Death

I have been asked by several people why I have not made mention of the death of a 2 year old baby recently. Although I think this is one hell of a story, my wife and I are in the middle of retaining custody of our Grandson and my personal opinion of this mater could jeopardize our position. Heck, I know it would.

I'm not sure if I'll revisit this situation at a later point but you know what they just did to Saddam, right?

Other Holidays Celebrated On The Plaza

If It Looks Official It Should Be OK, Right? NOT!

Where's that Badge and Ticket Book I asked for Barrie?

Is This A Parking Area?

In-between the GOB and the Court House is a sort of breezeway where I continue to see more and more vehicles. Are the concrete slabs designed to hold such weight and traffic?

Mr. Tim Spies

The Man,
The Myth,

The Legend!

This Is The Right Man For The Salisbury City Council!

Wind Turbine Troubles By Dr. Jimmy Tragle, Part V

The impact of electrical grid complexity and the intermittence of wind is a concept that is perhaps the single most important issue if you wipe away the sum total of all the comments brought to light so far. The wind is intermittent and it isn’t available when needed the most. Back up generation is needed and must be available at a moments notice.

Some grid basics are important to understand this.

For comparison think of the water supply for many cities. There are usually one or more large storage facilities to store water for usage. These can build up a store during times of excess rain and then absorb to a great extent periods of drought so long as they're not excessive or sustained for lengthy periods.

The electrical grid, unlike a public water works cannot store electricity. The supply must neatly match the demand put upon it at any given time of day or season. If the grid fails, serious problems arise. Blackouts and brownouts occur. It doesn't matter if there is excess or deficiency, a problem will result if supply doesn't neatly match demand.

Most electricity is generated by heating water or a gas to drive a turbine which in turn drives a generator. Plant sizes and capabilities to ramp up or down vary depending upon the type of plant as directed by its function in the grid. Some supply base load, some supply demand loads, some supply peak loads. This involves super heating water to drive the turbines. This is a process that cannot be turned on at the flick of a switch. Depending upon plant size the starting up phase can be very inefficient and once everything is running as it is supposed to the efficiency goes up remarkably. These include nuclear, coal fired, and gas fired plants. The nuclear plants generate little greenhouse gas if any, coal the most, and gas fired ones are considerably cleaner than coal. Thermal plants lose efficiency when ramped up and down.

These can be kept up and running in spinning reserve to meet demand rapidly, but that involves burning fuel while generating little or no electricity. Very inefficient. There is no option to just turn them off when the wind is blowing. Furnaces have to be brought up to operating temperatures and the water or gas has to be brought up to operating temperatures. These take a bit of time to occur. Wind falls out at a moments notice and the gap has to be filled abruptly.

Hydroelectric plants run either off a dam that lets water build up in a reservoir and used to spin turbines or they're placed directly in running water. These can be ramped up and down fairly promptly.

Hydro is easiest to flick off and on. If one is going to use hydro to back up turbines one must have hydro available as back up. No new hydro is going on line, so no coal is going off line. If on the other hand one is going to attempt to replace coal fired electricity with wind generated electricity then a coal plant will only be removed from electricity generation temporarily, unless its required capability to back up a wind plant is met by some other source of backup. The coal fired plant is burning coal, it just isn’t producing electricity. This means that off isn't really off, it is just a bit less than on and requires going beyond on to get back to on. I know that sounds confusing, but any truck driver that has had to depend upon obtaining the best mileage to get somewhere will understand the meaning. Slowing down means speeding up is needed to go back on line and that is inefficient. Get in the way of a truck on the interstate and note the black smoke coming from the stack as it passes you. That is inefficiency in play.

Reading the above one can also wonder what is sensible about finding an alternative to coal to use as a back up to wind. If it is an alternative to coal why bother with complicating things by using something so acreage demanding as wind? If it is to be used as a coal substitute it must be as reliable as coal is in order to backup wind and it must be cleaner than coal to warrant use. This would appear to render wind energy moot.The second half of this equation is the wind plant's time for peak output and its mismatch to peak demand on the grid. Peak demand occurs in the hot summer months during the day. Peak production occurs during fall nights. Thus power is produced when needed the least.

The electricity demand during the summer days has to come from somewhere, and it won't be wind. When the wind is blowing something has to be turned off to compensate on the grid. The easiest ones to do this are the hydro generators. Where is the CO2 savings? This isn't always the case though, some coal plants get ramped up and down thus decreasing their efficiency and perhaps causing a CO2 savings deficit, if that makes sense.

Industry proponents will be quick to point out success stories here and there. If you look closely you'll find that these tend to be either half truths with another aspect they're omitting or they'll involve power grids with relatively low wind saturation. Meaning there aren't very many wind plants in existence for these grids.

In systems that have higher saturations of available wind power the actual contribution that the wind plants make to the grid fall off and even require the addition of new back up generation facilities. There is a fairly new study that points this out. This study isn't the work of some crazed wind opponent. The "report was compiled through a comprehensive literature search, the help of the regulators and assistance from governments, energy organizations and meteorological bureau." "Nearly every one of the points described in the study has been labeled a "myth" by a lobby group."

Denmark and Germany have fairly high wind power saturation and what they're learning is that this destabilizes their grids. Power has to be dumped off, often in neighboring countries. This involves the wind power getting sold at a loss to Norway, which then shuts down its own hydro plants to take advantage of the now cheap electricity. No CO2 savings. Conversely Denmark and Germany boast some of the highest rates for electricity among developed nations.

Denmark has shown a downward trend in CO2 emissions in the last decade. This is due to the use of combined heat and power plants, increased efficiency and increased use of natural gas and biomass in the electricity sector. No reduction is attributed to wind power.

Clearly, in spite of what industry proponents would have the public believe it isn't a matter of throw up a wind plant and shut down a coal fired plant. Indeed the above study suggests "that while wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity. " So it takes 48 GW of wind to equate to just 2 GW of fossil fuel. To put this into perspective the Jack Mountain site consisting of 44 turbines at 1.5 MW nameplate gives a facility total = 66 MW installed capacity. This will sit atop a 6.4 mile stretch of ridge that to date is pristine and unaltered by any industrial installations. 6400 miles of ridge line with 44,000 turbines would equate to 66 GW or about the equivalent to about 2.75 GW in coal. That is somewhere around 0.3% of US total installed capacity in 2002 (885 GW). How that can contribute to a decrease in CO2 emissions escapes me. Especially when you consider the other environmental costs for that many turbines. Not to mention the financial cost for installation.

Another fundamental error in thinking is that our electricity consumption has been on the rise by 2% per year. Wind energy can not begin to hope to keep up with that pace. We're on an unstoppable CO2 emissions increase no matter what carbon free power we use unless we reverse that trend. Provided no one wants nuclear.