Thoughts on the Obama Eurofest

Posted on by
4

Could Obama be a team player in the global political scene?

I guess you can say I’m an Obama supporter. After all, I’d rather see him in the Oval Office than McCain. Like so many other people, I think McCain (1) is too old and (2) will give us yet another 4 years of Bush-like decision making. And although I may be part of the higher-income group that won’t benefit from Obama’s economic plan, I really think it’s time to stop letting the ultra-rich ride the U.S. economy without paying their fair share.

When it was Obama vs. Hillary, I couldn’t decide. I’m not registered as a Democrat, so I couldn’t vote in the primaries. I had to let others decide. I don’t even know which one Arizona chose. It didn’t matter. What mattered was the final result. When Hillary dropped out, I felt relief — not because I preferred Obama, but because I (like most other Americans) was sick of the media coverage on the race.

But since then, I have yet to be convinced that Obama is a better candidate than Hillary. (Or that Hillary would be better than Obama, for that matter.)

And no, I don’t subscribe to any of the bullshit satirized on the New Yorker cover. Although I found the illustration distasteful, I certainly do understand the concept of satire. Unfortunately, much of middle America doesn’t and is likely to find the illustration confirmation of their misguided beliefs.

On the pro side, I believe Obama does represent hope and change. He’s young, he gets people excited, and he does not represent the same political establishment we’ve been looking at for years. I believe he does have the country’s well-being at the top of his list of interests.

But on the con side, I think Obama lacks the experience necessary to get things done in our government. I think he’ll have to waste a lot of time and effort getting his ball rolling in the establishment he’s so obviously not a part of. If he wins, he’ll have a struggle ahead of him to succeed in his goals.

McCain sometimes applies the word “naive” to Obama; I don’t think that’s too far from the truth. But I also think that Obama has the intelligence and drive to rise above that.

Still, Obama’s rise in our government has me troubled. He’s come a long way in a short time and doesn’t have much to show for it. After all, when you’re sprinting to the finish line, you can’t stop much along the way to get things done. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad.

But what makes me hopeful for a President Obama this week is the reception he’s getting in Europe. The Europeans evidently love him. That alone is a point in his favor.

On September 11, 2001, America was the victim of a horrific act of terrorism. We suddenly had the good will and support of most of the world. The Bush administration, through its independent actions and attitudes, has squandered all that goodwill. This cannot be argued. Not only does most of the world now look down on us, but we’re actually hated in many parts of the world.

While many Americans are convinced that we’re better than anyone else and have some kind of God-given right to do whatever we want to do, I believe America is part of a global community. We need to be a team player. We need to work with our allies for the good of the world.

I believe that Obama understands that, too. But what’s more important is that the rest of the world might see Obama as a team player in the global political scene. Because no matter how low Bush’s opinion ratings are here in the U.S., I’m willing to bet they’re a lot lower overseas.

Comments? Please do share them. Use the Comments link or form for this post. Just keep it civil, okay?

Gone to the Wind[mills]

Posted on by
4

A visit to Washington’s other source of alternative energy.

Washington state is widely known for its cheap, reliable electric power. One reason it’s cheap is because it’s hydroelectric — the Columbia and other rivers in Washington have been dammed up with numerous hydroelectric plants, many of them built as part of the New Deal in the 1930s. (An interesting side note here: we visited the Grand Coulee Dam and learned on the tour that power wasn’t one of the reasons the dam was originally built. The two primary reasons were irrigation and flood control. I really ought to write about that tour in another post.)

Anyway, Washington is also on the leading edge of renewable power generation from wind generators or windmills. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has two facilities, one of which is on a series of ridges in Kittitas County, 18 miles east of Ellensburg. This Wild Horse Wind Facility is clearly visible from my camp just south of Quincy, about 20 air miles away. It’s also open to the public for tours. So on Saturday afternoon, feeling a dire need to get away from the book project I’m working on, I headed out to see the place close up.

It’s easy to get to. From I-90, take the exit for Vantage, which is on the west side of the Columbia River. After stopping for a burger at Blustery’s, head up the old Vantage Highway. You’ll get to the turn for Wild Horse about 12 miles up the road. It’s hard to miss — the road is clearly marked and you can see lots of windmills from the main road.

Wild Horse Wind FacilityFollow the entrance road about three miles as it winds up a hill. You’ll pass a bunch of windmills along the way — the road actually passes quite close to a few of them. Eventually, you’ll see the Visitor Center at the top of the site. Behind it are a few windmills that, when seen with the building in front, look absolutely enormous.

When I arrived, an all-girls camp group was there. The girls were in their early teens. I managed to latch on to one of their tours, which included a walk up eight or so steps into the tower at the bottom of one of the windmills. Afterward, I wandered around a bit, got technical information about the facility, and took plenty of photos.

WindmillWant some stats? The facility is on a 9,000 acre site overlooking the Columbia River Basin. It was started up in December 2006 with 127 wind turbines. Each turbine is capable of producing up to 1.8 megawatts of power in 31 mph winds, for a total of 229 megawatts. The turbines start generating power at 9 mph of wind and are programmed to feather their blades and basically shut down when winds exceed 56 mph to avoid damage. Since the site is usually pretty windy, the facility does a pretty good job generating power.

Each turbine sits atop a 221-foot tall tower. (See the flight of steps at the very bottom of the tower in this photo? It has about 8 steps. That should give you an idea of scale.) The foundations go down 25 to 32 feet and each have 120 anchor bolts around the 13-foot wide tower base. The bolts are huge, as you might imagine.

The turbines, which are manufactured in Denmark, generate power at 690 volts. A transformer inside the turbine housing, steps up the power to 34.5 kilovolts. These turbines are atop the tower (of course) and are about the size of a typical RV or motorhome. They’re reached from a ladder inside the tower.

Windmill BladeThe blades are also huge. There was one on display outside the visitor center and I snapped a photo with my fisheye lens (which explains the distortion) of the girls gathered around it. Each of a windmill’s three blades is 129 feet long, 11.6 wide near the hub, and 1.6 feed wide at the tip. They’re made of composite materials, are hollow, and weigh 7 tons each. When you figure the length of the rotor blade into the total maximum height of the windmill, you get 351 feet.

It’s no wonder I can see them from 20 miles away.

We all know that the environmentalists are concerned about windmills and their impact on birds and bats. I asked about this. I was told that the facility averages 2 dead birds per turbine per year. I think more are killed being hit by cars. The folks at Wild Horse take the situation seriously and collect and bag all birds found. Bats are not an issue there.

For me, the most amazing part of visiting the windmills was the sound they made as they were spinning.

After my tour in the Visitor Center vicinity, I hopped on the truck and followed the dirt road around the facility. I was out to take photos and I got a few interesting ones.

If you’re in the area, I recommend a visit to the Wild Horse Wind Facility. Try calling 888-225-5773 if you need more info; I can’t seem to find the official Web site for the facility.

And if there’s a wind or other alternative energy facility open to the public for tours in your area, make it a point to visit with your kids. It’s a great way to learn about energy options.

George Washington at the 76

Posted on by
1

Am I the only one who thinks this is funny?

On Saturday, on my way back from Ellensburg, I stopped off in George to buy a quart of milk. George is 5 miles south of my camper, and despite the fact that I’d driven past the town a half dozen times, I’d never stopped there.

The cleanest looking place in town to buy milk was the 76 gas station. I pulled in and parked. That’s when I spotted the bronze bust of George Washington. Moments later, I realized I was in George, Washington. (Duh-uh.) And then I realized that the 76 (as in 1776) sign was right behind George’s head.

So I took the photo.

George in Washington

Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is funny?

Night Photos

Posted on by
Comment

A few night shots.

Sorry about sharing so much photography lately, but I’m going through my photos and adding the best ones — or at least the ones I like best — to my Photo Gallery. Along the way, it seems logical to write something about them.

I made these about a month ago, during a nighttime photo shoot around the Colockum (formerly Quincy Valley) Golf Course. I thought I’d put them online already, but I can’t seem to find them. So here they are: the three best from that shoot.

Quincy Valley Golf

The Quincy Valley Golf Course and RV Park was built a number of years ago by a now semi-retired man named Chuck. It started out with nine holes, built on a farm field. Chuck later added another nine holes and developed some extra land as RV lots in an “adults only” community. (The small RV park near the pro shop is where I’m parked for the season.) According to Chuck, who now handle the RV park irrigation and landscaping, the golf course was well-maintained and featured ponds and landscaping. For various reasons, he sold it to a man who was a golf-lover. Over the course of not very many years, the man drove the facility into the ground. He went bankrupt and eventually sold out to the Port of Quincy. When I arrived in June, they were busy fixing the place back up. They’ve done a nice job in only a few months and I think the Colockum Golf Course — it’s new name — has a good future here.

Quincy Valley GolfBut this sign, which is lighted at night, remains to remind us of the golf course’s past. It’s a great old-style sign that may not be in the best condition, but still calls out to passersby on busy state route 281 as they drive between Quincy, five miles north, and George, five miles south. My favorite part? The silhouetted golfer is wearing knickers. During the day, the sign is rather nondescript and not very interesting.

Night Tractor

Night TractorThe golf course is in the middle of farmland. All around are fields growing wheat, feed corn, potatoes, alfalfa, and other crops. There are all kinds of farm vehicles all over the place.

This tractor is parked in front of a metal building not far from the Quincy Golf sign. It’s illuminated by a single tungsten light fixture over the door to the metal building behind the camera. The camera picks up the greenish hue of the night, emphasizing the green of the tractor. The photo was taken not long after sunset, when there was still a bit of light in the sky.

I like the photo because the tractor makes me think of a sleeping monster — powerful, yet peaceful at rest.

Stop

StopThe golf course and its RV park are on the corner of a busy intersection. State route 281 runs north/south between Quincy and George. Road 5, also known as White Trail Road, is a sort of Quincy bypass, that runs east/west and then north/south, west of Quincy. Because it bypasses the traffic light (and minor traffic) in town, its popular with truckers traveling between I-90, five miles south, and Wenatchee, 35 miles northwest.

There’s no traffic light on the corner. Instead, Road 5 has a stop sign. To make that sign extra visible at night, it has a pair of blinking red lights on it. This time exposure was long enough to catch both lights on, illuminating the sign. This must be enough — in the nearly two months I’ve been here, there hasn’t been an accident at the corner yet.

If you like these photos, I hope you’ll check out my After Dark photo gallery.

Shooting the Moon

Posted on by
3

I finally figure out how to do it right.

I’ve been taking photos of the moon for years — since I first developed an interest in photography.

I remember one of my first experiments. I was in my late teens, away at college. My dorm room was on the top (14th) floor of one of the university’s six dorm towers. My room faced east. At moonrise one night, I set up my camera and tripod and took several long exposures of the rising disc. I developed the film — remember that stuff? — and was very disappointed with the results. The moon wasn’t round. It was oval. And there were no features. Why? Because my long exposure was too long and the moon moved during the shot.

Time passed. I stopped dating a photographer, graduated from college, and got on with my life. Photography wasn’t very important to me. Photographing the moon was, in my mind, something I simply couldn’t do.

More time passed. Enter digital cameras. They’ve done more for photo experimentation than any other development (pun intended). I could try all kinds of things and see results immediately (on a tiny screen) or almost immediately (on a 24-in high resolution computer monitor. How does a change in shutter speed, aperture, focal length, or lens filter affect my image? Try it and see! (The trick, of course, is to pay attention and remember what it is you’re trying. Remembering is not one of my strengths.)

So I tried shooting the moon again. I shot some photos of a lunar eclipse this past February. They weren’t bad. In fact, some of the folks who saw them liked them a lot. But I wasn’t satisfied. Not enough detail. Not clear enough.

Quincy Golf Moon Moon with Car LightsLast month I tried again. It was my first full moon in Quincy. I was camped out at the Quincy Golf Course, which has an “RV park” connected to it. (The quotes are because there are only 5 full hookup sites, a bunch of partial hookup sites, and no other RV parklike facilities.) I brought my tripod out to take some photos of various things in night lighting. I got a bunch of good photos — check my Photo Gallery to see a few of them — but my shots of the moon were not among them. I liked these two the best. In the first, I lined up the moon with the Quincy Golf sign. The moon looks like a big golf ball. In the second, I shot the moon when it was still quite low. My camera angle included the road (State Route 281), which is heavily trafficked. The lines are the lights of cars and trucks whizzing by during the relatively long exposure.

The other day, I tried again just after moonrise. I used my 70-300mm lens, dialed in to 300mm with image stabilization on. I put it on a tripod. And then a shot a bunch of photos, examining each one after I shot it. I realized that the moon was too bright. And then my brain kicked in. What makes a photo too bright? Too much light; overexposure. What do you do if a photo is overexposed? Reduce the amount of light coming in. How do you reduce the light coming in? Two ways: close down the lens or increase the shutter speed.

Or, on my camera, just set exposure compensation to underexpose the photo.

So I set the exposure compensation to the minus side of the meter. At first, I set it 1/3 stop. I took a shot. No appreciable difference. A full stop. Better. Two stops. Much better; I could now see some detail on the moon’s face. Three stops, now beyond what the meter can show. Great. With each change, the camera increased the shutter speed. So I was actually killing two birds with one stone: I was decreasing the amount of light that came into the camera to avoid washout of the moon’s surface and increasing the shutter speed to shorten up my exposure, thus preventing blur from the moon’s movement.

Want to see the differences over time? Here are six shots. The first was taken without exposure compensation at 9:03 PM. The others were taken with various amounts of exposure compensation from 9:10 PM through 9:11 PM, about 12 seconds apart.

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/40 second
Exposure Bias: 0

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/60 second
Exposure Bias: -1

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/80 second
Exposure Bias: -1

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/120 second
Exposure Bias: -2

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/200 second
Exposure Bias: -2.67

MoonAperture: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/250 second
Exposure Bias: -2.67

None of these images have been retouched. All I did was bring them into Photoshop, crop them to a 600 pixel square, and then reduce the resolution to 72 dpi.

But with a tiny bit of sharpening in Photoshop, at a higher resolution, the final photo doesn’t look bad at all:

Full Moon

What do you think? Have you used any special techniques to shoot the moon or other objects at night? Use the Comments link or form at the bottom of this post to share your secrets.