I faintly recall a similar concept that was proposed in Australia but didn't get anywhere. There are a whole lot of, ahem, "interesting" alternative energy ideas out there and I imagine their numbers will be on the increase for the forseeable future.

Weather Watcher:
Just think if we took billions of dollars from the hands of exxon mobil and looked to the future for a change. That tornado AVE machine is a great idea.
We are already subsidizing Agriculture for soy beans and corn , but now we have a chance to ween ourselves off of oil.The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, or H.R. 5351, would repeal the $18 billion in tax breaks for multinational oil companies. The bill would create tax breaks for producers of renewable energy, fuel, and electricity. The bill needs Senate approval. Time to get a kick start on saving the planet. I think our next administration will begin a fresh approach to clean living! Electric trains, and hybrid buses.
KIPP

Seems to me that it would be better to be taller. This is basically a giant chimney with wind turbines placed in the air intakes, and the taller the column of rising air, the more lift it has, hence more power. I'm assuming the air intakes and turbines are arranged tangentially to the exterior of a round tower to induce the vortex or 'manmade tornado'?

While I am not a believer in the CO2-fueled AGW hypothesis, I am a big supporter into alternate energy research.

Our energy future should be diverse. America needs more home-grown energy. If this can be made practical and economically viable, great! Does anybody know how the proposed 200 megawatt/$60 million dollar plant compare to conventional sources? I'm troubled by the lack of investor interest, but if the new prototype delivers as promised, that shouldn't be a problem.

If you follow the link and read the FAQs, you'll find this gem: The vortex engine increases the quantity of electrical energy produced by thermal power plants without increasing fuel consumption thereby permitting a reduction in the quantity of fuel required to meet human power needs.

I hope this becomes successful. So much of our current energy sources are being limited and we won't have enough power in the near future if we can't find working alternate energy sources. If we're ever to get practical hydrogen energy, we will need more energy than we have today. Likewise, electric cars and plug-in hybrids need juice and I don't know where it will come from unless we build more power plants, not less.

Have a good weekend. I'm off to a nice dinner with the wife and to see WALL*E later.

Very interesting, but, in the long run I think this will be as useful as a Tesla based 'eternal energy' machine.

Well I`m related to the Michaud`s way back in Acadia and French Canada.
By the way, have you consulted a site called "not by fire but by ice" on the internet?
It has very interesting postings about global climate. You should read a posting about valcanos under the Artic Ocean. Good reading!

"Michaud is currently working on a 4 megawatt prototype, but so far had no investors. He estimates that the 200 megawatt facility would cost 60 million to build."

And big oil makes that in about 20 minutes. Gods, I wish someone high up in exxon or shell or whatever would wise up, make something like this happen, and then it would be "big wind" instead of "big oil"

Howabout tornado powered cars? (Seriously)

Interesting, indeed.

If this idea turns out to have technical merit and the economic value of the energy produced yields an acceptable return on investment, it will be picked up by the power industry. Apparently the power folks haven't been convinced of the merits yet.

On another note, changes in energy production and use always have and always will be driven by economics and the time-honored law of supply and demand - not by government policy, not by public awareness campaigns, and not because of concern about CO2. Simple as that.

As soon as an electric auto with decent performance is available at a reasonable cost, I plan to get one. Not because of tailpipe emissions, but because the electric grid in my State is powered by good 'ole domestically produced coal and nuclear. I'm tired of sending $billions every year to unstable countries who happen to have lots of oil.

Not the most promising alternative energy source out there, but way more interesting than most. In any case, whether you're worried about AWG or not, it certainly makes sense to start giving solid and reliable government support (ie similar subsidies and tax breaks that we already give to oil and nuclear) to a wide range of efficiency and renewable options.

It is not Big Oil's job to develop alternative energy just as it was not the carriage maker's job to develop the automobile. Exxon's profits look big because they are, as a company, big. Their profits are in line with all industries.

For the AVE idea, it sounds Wonderful but I suspect the reason no investors have joined in is that there is one or many issues that limit it's possibility of success. God Bless the inventive engineer that is trying to find a better mouse trap.

Kipp,

I don't think stealing is the answer. If you don't like oil cos making a profit, then don't buy oil, and use your savings to invest in alternative energy. How do you convince private capital to finance development of new energy sources if you show them that you will steal any profits made from the fruits of their labor? Oil companies pay taxes that are more than double the profits they make. And if you have a 401k, then you are undoubtedly part of "big oil" yourself. The oil cos are owned by investors, who are by and large average people like us, so when you talk about stealing profits from them, your also stealing from your neighbors. But your attitude reinforces my suspicion that the AGW fad is more about socialism than energy, or AGW concerns. Here you are talking about nationalizing the oil cos, you remind me of a certain socialist dictator in Venezuala.

yes! go ! gr8 idea!

Kipp Alpert Wrote:

Weather Watcher:
Just think if we took billions of dollars from the hands of exxon mobil and looked to the future for a change. That tornado AVE machine is a great idea.
We are already subsidizing Agriculture for soy beans and corn , but now we have a chance to ween ourselves off of oil.The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, or H.R. 5351, would repeal the $18 billion in tax breaks for multinational oil companies. The bill would create tax breaks for producers of renewable energy, fuel, and electricity. The bill needs Senate approval. Time to get a kick start on saving the planet. I think our next administration will begin a fresh approach to clean living! Electric trains, and hybrid buses.
KIPP

Kipp, this must be the most frightening thing you have ever written. By what right can we take billions from anybody so we can give it to somebody else you believe is more deserving? If you were arguing about ending subsidies, then I'd be with you. We don't need to spend public money to support big business, be it big oil, big corn or big green.

You should realize that green tech and alternate energy are suddenly hot because of lobbying from corporate interests. GE stands to profit billions from alternate energy mandates. Enron is a famous example of a company which stood to profit handsomely by the government forcing a carbon cap-and-trade system upon the economy. This is called 'rent seeking' and is one of the reasons our government is bloated and our economy is inefficient.

There are billions of dollars in investor capital available to invest in good ideas. Why do the taxpayers need to underwrite somebody's profit? If the smart money won't invest in an idea or a technology, then is it the dumb money that does?

The market will find solutions to our energy problems if the government would just get out of the way. Most of our current energy problems are due to our government's incompetence. We need fewer subsidies, fewer mandates and less government interference and not more.

And yes, I do support alternate energy, just not alternate energy mandates. I do hope the tornado AVE machine and other technologies are successful. We need to produce more of our energy domestically and we need more diversity in our energy sources.

Thank you

Weather Watcher:
'Just think if we took billions of dollars from the hands of exxon mobil and looked to the future for a change. That tornado AVE machine is a great idea.'

I will try to keep this respectful, which you have not done to so many other posters. Exxon spends its money to supply us with oil. Its profit margins are in line or lower than most big business, far less than chemical companies like DOW and Carpenter. Government gives us nothing and yet we pay them and they use the money for failed Light Rail and Hybrid buses. The hybrid buses spend more time in the repair shop than on the roads. My father works on them and says they only can run one day a week before needed repairs. Stop attacking oil companies that supply us with the most widely used chemical and be more respectful of other posters, it reflects badly upon you.

"Kipp Alpert:
Weather Watcher:
Just think if we took billions of dollars from the hands of exxon mobil and looked to the future for a change."

How would that be ethical? If the government took money from the oil companies that would be stealing. If however the money was from taxes that the government would receive from the repeal of the tax breaks for "big oil" that would be fine. My problem with most of the people who want to take money from "big oil" is that it's not the taxes they want to take but the "record profits." Profits belong to the oil company and its investors and taking them forcabily is stealing.

As I said in another post I am all for alternative energy but it needs to be safe as well as affordable. I would love to power my home with solar and wind but the initial cost is too high. I would love to have an electric or solar car the size of an SUV that gets around 500 miles to a charge but they do not exist and if they did I could not afford it now anyway. Plus If a vehicle charges off of something other than solar or wind where does that energy come from?

D Caldwell:

"On another note, changes in energy production and use always have and always will be driven by economics and the time-honored law of supply and demand - not by government policy, not by public awareness campaigns, and not because of concern about CO2. Simple as that."

I agree. The fundamental reason why we don't have more alternate energy is that the economics haven't been there. Fossil fuels are just too jam packed with energy. As the price goes up, economics will naturally drive the development of alternatives. The CO2 non-problem will (if cap and trade is enacted) unnecessarily accelerate this natural process and force a catastrophic drain on the economy because of the Gov't bureaucratic sinkhole and the private trading Gore-hole.

Of all the issues with energy, "sending $billions every year to unstable countries who happen to have lots of oil", and its National and Economic security implications is should be the absolute #1/2 issue on everyone's list.

If catastrophic CO2 warming had a shred of evidence and we didn't have the list of natural causes which are so much more credible (can anyone say sun cycles?), then that might be #3 on the list along with National and Economic security. But, CO2 shouldn't even make the top 100. In fact, increasing CO2 might actually be the #3 objective on the list.

BTW, the tornado energy idea sounds cool! I wonder if the idea can scale down to perhaps 50 ft high and several feet in diameter and generate some low level of wattage to supplement home use.

Wow, what an amazing idea.
If we will take further, why don't you use solar power to produce the heat, and then combine the system with hydro power to increase the efficiency of the wind-power inside. If you build something like that near the sea, in a very sunny place, you might have a winner system.

Although it is sounds very expensive to build, I think that investing in such ideas will dramatically decrease the prices of energy production in the future.

Anonymous:
If you were right you wouldn't have to lie, misquote me,and make ignorant assumptions. Perhaps you should endeavour to learn more science and leave the slander at your home. Perhaps your are a little befuddled by the lack of knowledge from the person who you voted for, and a little unhappy about who will be our next President. You see, in a true democracy, we enjoy
the ability to kick out the old and bad ideas in favor of the higher values of the new and more intellegent. You can call me Cesar Chavez, but I wouldn't make you dog catcher.
KIPP

IMHO, if this is just a system that uses existing waste heat from industries, power stations to get better efficiencies out of present system I am all for it. But if he is looking to build a giant system that generates energy from solar power, I am feeling a bit apprehensive. This is pumping heat energy into the upper atmosphere much faster than natural means, if it is done on a large scale what does that means to the environment? Anthropogenic Climate Change? Remember unintended consequences. Definitely needs further studies even if it is a workable alternative energy source.

good idea

The anonymous June 28, 2008 2:00 PM was me.

Sorry

Tax breaks as Welfare goes corporate!

The fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute. And the fact that carbon dioxide is being poured into the atmosphere by hundreds of millions of cars and hundreds of thousands of city power plants is also not in dispute. In 1950, these sources poured 1.6 billion tons of carbon into the air worldwide; by 1991, they were pumping about 6 billion tons into the air. this has been accompanied by signs of a growing heat wave. It is a testimony to the greed of corporate special interests that they would even try to rationalize these facts away.
The United States is by far the largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world. It contributes 21 percent of all the greenhouse gases poured into the atmosphere, ahead of the former Soviet Union. To be sure, this is not a proud statistic for capitalism -- at least in its more unregulated form. Fat Texans Eat. We suffer!
KIPP

Anonymous:I am talking about tax breaks not profits. I have my own capitalist small business and would not like my profits taken. But I think that if we decide to put more money in technologies for the near future we would be better off. The Arabs just got through saying that they may raise the price by barrel at more than three dollars ,sort of wiping our noses in it. If exon-mobil wants to make new technologies that we could sell that would be better for us, why not. I am a capitalist, and foresee the capacity of our American ingenuity. We better get a kick start in this as the oil will inevitably go up in price;i.e.enter the Chinese yuppie!Don't compare me to Chaves. Thanks,Kipp

Kipp and Weather Watcher:

Forget about the puny billions that Exxon makes.

If the US is to continue being a first class middle class nation we need to stem the flow of 100's of billions to middle east nations who pose a security threat.

We should spend the money in the US on alternative energy and not send it overseas.

Regards,
GettingWarm

Science by intimidation
REX MURPHY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Read Bio | Latest Columns
June 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM EDT

Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it's a lesson passed by.

In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions. Galileo is the arch example, the pioneer empiricist who rejected the ancient Earth-centric model of the (then known) universe, and for his pains earned the attention and wrath of the distinctly unscientific Inquisition.

I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming, a man who played � as it were � John the Baptist to Al Gore's messianic teachings on the subject. Dr. Hansen is largely credited with �sounding the alarm� on man-made global warming, and he has been a persistent, high-profile and very aggressive proponent of the cause for over two decades now. Dr. Hansen doesn't take kindly to those who dispute his apocalyptic scenarios. I choose the term, apocalyptic, deliberately. According to Dr. Hansen, mankind may have reached the tipping point with global warming. Should that be the case, wide-scale calamity and catastrophe are inevitable. And should we not have reached the point of absolute crisis, should there be a minuscule interval for the human species to act and avert the very worst, according to Dr. Hansen, what yet remains to be faced is still horrible enough indeed.

Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time. They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mi