Wind Power - what a joke

2blue4u

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,769
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
All this wind about and this wonderful renewable energy source manages just 2.9% of the nation's needs. What's the point.

And that's not the only problem. Take a look at the photos on the Beeb - photo 13 at the time of writing. It brought about a chuckle :D

We should have built 30 nuclear power stations instead of bailing out the bankers. Now that would have been an investment for the future.

Sorry. A Thursday rant brought to you by Bl00.
 
Or you could look at it the other way - they only need 34 times as many windmills to produce 100% of the energy required :thumbs:

I heard something on the radio the other day which was about how much energy is used to build and maintain these things which actually makes them about as viable as a Prius when you look at the long term cost...
 
Or you could look at it the other way - they only need 34 times as many windmills to produce 100% of the energy required :thumbs:

I heard something on the radio the other day which was about how much energy is used to build and maintain these things which actually makes them about as viable as a Prius when you look at the long term cost...

Er, no! For every megawatt of capacity you have from wind power you need another megawatt of capacity from another source - for the days when there is no wind at all. It does happen.
 
Which is why I think the Scottish govt is daft to be going all out for wind power, tidal power if they can get it right has much more potential and the tides are regular as clockwork, unlike the fickle wind.
 
Wind power is goldilocks power.

Not too little and not too much, the wind has to be just right.

On shore wind farms are a total waste of money, like Hugh say's tidal or wave power is the only way forward for green renewable power.

The real way forward is going to be 4G Nuclear Power Stations.
 
If all the plans for wind turbines on Anglesey are passed, then a beautiful Island will be spoilt forever!
 
Woo Wind Turbines. I don't mind them being built... However, they will obviously damage the view of the beautiful countryside especially with the photography, but it needs to be done for selfish man requiring more power!!.. And not built as an obstical for bird migration routes.

When I own my own house I will hopefully be able to turn the roof into a large solar panel unit and have my own wind turbines, self power IMO is the way forward.. no waste, and if there is spare you can make money from it, and it's all renewable! :)
 
Last edited:
Which is why I think the Scottish govt is daft to be going all out for wind power, tidal power if they can get it right has much more potential and the tides are regular as clockwork, unlike the fickle wind.

:agree::plusone:

That's the way forward,I would like to know how much money is being put up for the research of wave power.
 
Nuclear fusion is the best way forward
 
The decommissioning costs must pale into insignificance, so Anglesey and elsewhere needn't be spoilt "forever".

There's a family a mile from me, whose landlord wouldn't foot the bill for a hookup, so they're living (happily, apparently) off-grid.

Any eejit can leave stuff switched on and complain about bills or lack of capacity...
 
treeman said:
Wind turbines, absolutely love em! Rather have a million of them outside my front door than a nuclear power station any day :)

Really, outside your front door*
[YOUTUBE]CqEccgR0q-o&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YOUTUBE]


Fine if you want to go back to 1950s power usage levels, they'll never cope with today's demands, can you imagine the financial consequences of industry stopping at 11am because the wind dropped

They're a huge white elephant, I see loads of these farms driving about and quite often if there's 15 of them at least 1 isn't running which I can only assume is due to breakdown

I'd sooner have 1 nuclear power station than 1000 windmills
 
All this wind about and this wonderful renewable energy source manages just 2.9% of the nation's needs. What's the point.

And that's not the only problem. Take a look at the photos on the Beeb - photo 13 at the time of writing. It brought about a chuckle :D

We should have built 30 nuclear power stations instead of bailing out the bankers. Now that would have been an investment for the future.

Sorry. A Thursday rant brought to you by Bl00.

Would you just clarify your credentials as an environmental scientist so we can weight your opinions? Might be worth asking a Japanese about nuclear.

Nuclear fusion is the best way forward

My friend Mike or Dr Mike as he is generally known is looking into it. Sadly no joy so far. :'(
 
Would you just clarify your credentials as an environmental scientist so we can weight your opinions? Might be worth asking a Japanese about nuclear.



My friend Mike or Dr Mike as he is generally known is looking into it. Sadly no joy so far. :'(

Perhaps your Dr. Mike friend needs to work harder then ;)
 
We should have built 30 nuclear power stations instead of bailing out the bankers. Now that would have been an investment for the future.

Sorry. A Thursday rant brought to you by Bl00.

The real way forward is going to be 4G Nuclear Power Stations.

Nuclear fusion is the best way forward

mmmmmm..................cause nuclear power has showed us its such a clean, green, safe form of energy hasn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
 
Stop the bloody Chinese building coal power stations every week and polluting the world would be a good start. All this eco cobblers counts for nothing if the rest of the world can't be ar**d to do anything. Apparently the Kyoto agreement is coming to an end in 2012, will they all resubscribe to a new agreement? will China play ball? will India?

So long as man is on the face of this planet we will continue to rape it of natural resources until it is dead or until it fights back.

We are doomed, Merry Xmas :)

I am as guilty as the next person for energy waste, education required.
 
SteveH40 said:
Stop the bloody Chinese building coal power stations every week and polluting the world would be a good start. All this eco cobblers counts for nothing if the rest of the world can't be ar**d to do anything. Apparently the Kyoto agreement is coming to an end in 2012, will they all resubscribe to a new agreement? will China play ball? will India?

So long as man is on the face of this planet we will continue to rape it of natural resources until it is dead or until it fights back.

We are doomed, Merry Xmas :)

I am as guilty as the next person for energy waste, education required.

Absolutely!
 
On the other hand, if a small part of a nuclear power station goes in the same way, we'd sure as heck will know about it!
 
Looking at that wikipedia list maybe we just need to stop Russia, Germany and USA from using nuclear power?
 
Last edited:
I take it you haven't heard of nuclear Fusion then :shrug:

gee you'd take it wrong then...............not exactly a proven technology yet is it :cuckoo: all they need to do is show how you'd actually build a power station using it - long way to go then.

I'm not really sure how thats relevant to the point, that to date nuclear power has proven its neither a safe nor clean technology
 
boyfalldown said:
gee you'd take it wrong then...............not exactly a proven technology yet is it :cuckoo: all they need to do is show how you'd actually build a power station using it - long way to go then.

I'm not really sure how thats relevant to the point, that to date nuclear power has proven its neither a safe nor clean technology

Proven it certainly is! Yes they have a lot more to do but all technology has to start somewhere.

Nuclear fusion is the cleanest form of energy we could ever hope for.
 
Which is why I think the Scottish govt is daft to be going all out for wind power, tidal power if they can get it right has much more potential and the tides are regular as clockwork, unlike the fickle wind.
it works pretty well for denmark...


we'll get fusion eventually, but this (especially offshore) is the way until we get that.
 
Splog said:
Proven it certainly is! Yes they have a lot more to do but all technology has to start somewhere.

Nuclear fusion is the cleanest form of energy we could ever hope for.

Even it's strongest proponents say its atleast 50 years away from viable and it's only just got to the point where you can run an experimental reactor that actually generates power rather then using more then you get out. Proven it isn't.

I'll give you clean (in theory) though
 
boyfalldown said:
Even it's strongest proponents say its atleast 50 years away from viable and it's only just got to the point where you can run an experimental reactor that actually generates power rather then using more then you get out. Proven it isn't.

I'll give you clean (in theory) though

Of course its proven, how can you say it isn't?
 
Splog said:
Of course its proven, how can you say it isn't?

I just did & explained why, how can you say a technology people have been working on for 60 years, is 50-100 more years away from viable is proven? It's going to through up many more difficulties along the way. In what way is it a proven tech?
 
boyfalldown said:
I just did & explained why, how can you say a technology people have been working on for 60 years, is 50-100 more years away from viable is proven? It's going to through up many more difficulties along the way. In what way is it a proven tech?

We crossed posts..anyway....

If you look up during the day you will see the sun, look up during the night and you will see stars, how much proof do you need?

The technology needs work but fifty years is nothing.
 
Splog said:
We crossed posts..anyway....

If you look up during the day you will see the sun, look up during the night and you will see stars, how much proof do you need?

The technology needs work but fifty years is nothing.

I understand how it works - but as you've just said turning it into a proven and useful tech is a different matter and it's not a proven technology by a long way
 
boyfalldown said:
I understand how it works - but as you've just said turning it into a proven and useful tech is a different matter and it's not a proven technology by a long way

Nope! You said there was no viable long term alternative and you are wrong! Nuclear fusion is viable and long term. Wind lower is not a viable alternative. It is very expensive, unreliable and very inefficient!
 
Wind power is viable and affordable and suited to a variety of tasks provided it's used with understanding. Not all human endeavours require megajoules.
 
photon said:
Wind power is viable and affordable and suited to a variety of tasks provided it's used with understanding. Not all human endeavours require megajoules.

Do you have a wind turbine supplying your power..if its affordable, then why not?
 
Chap a mile away does. He couldn't afford his own nuclear plant and his landlord couldn't afford to hook him up to the grid. Too many trees and not enough land to have a turbine here, and my energy-saving measures already cause enough friction.
 
Splog said:
Nope! You said there was no viable long term alternative and you are wrong! Nuclear fusion is viable and long term. Wind lower is not a viable alternative. It is very expensive, unreliable and very inefficient!

Where did I say that then? And where did I ever even mention wind power?.

All I've ever said is fusion is a long way from viable - and proving its self as the panacea you claim it is. I'm lost how, given the difficulties with it you claim it as proven
 
Nope! You said there was no viable long term alternative and you are wrong! Nuclear fusion is viable and long term. Wind lower is not a viable alternative. It is very expensive, unreliable and very inefficient!

And yet Ford manage to power their Dagenham Engine Plant from three turbines (third only just came into commission this year due to Ford's engine manufacture demands), store power for when the turbines can't run which is seldom and also put surplus energy into the National Grid.:thinking:
The turbines have been so succesful in terms of energy and cost saving they are installing similar in other plants in Europe.
 
A quick google suggest it would take 4000 5 megawatt turbines to power new York city

If that's correct how many would it take to power the uk, one factory isn't very much, Ford don't actually run a vehicle assembly line at dagenham any more it's just engine assembly so probably compressors and air tools, compressors only run when the air pressure drops, they aren't running all the time so one compressor can power dozens of tools



How many wind turbines would it take to power all of New York City?
Several thousand could hypothetically do the job…
According to Paul Sclavounos, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, 4,000 five megawatt turbines could meet New York City’s average annual electric consumption. The city’s five boroughs, plus Westchester, consumed around 60 thousand gigawatt-hours of electricity last year, according to ConEdison. That’s 60 billion kilowatt-hours a year.

This might sound like a lot, but it turns out New York City residents are among the greenest Americans, with households averaging 4,200 kilowatt-hours per year; typical households in less concentrated cities consume two to three times as much power. Still, even with the efficiencies of urban living, when the power needs associated with sweltering summers combine with the needs of bustling industrial and commercial sectors, New York’s utilities struggle to satisfy demand.

Sclavounos has been developing technology for ocean-based windfarms that could really help New York and other coastal cities with growing appetites for electricity. Unlike most offshore installations, which are fixed, bottom-mounted structures near the shore, the windfarms Sclavounos envisions involve a floating array of multi-mega watt turbines located miles from the coastline, and virtually invisible from shore. The absence of any visual impact, believes Sclavounos, lends a critical advantage to his offshore technology, since many coastal property owners object to seeing giant windmills in their “backyard.”

The tower for each turbine would stretch 90 meters above the surface of the sea, supporting blades reaching 125 meters in diameter. The whole apparatus would rest on special buoys, one kilometer apart, with strong mooring systems to take big waves. Sub-sea cables dug into trenches would channel electricity generated by each turbine to the electric grid onshore.

Sclavounos calculates that a windfarm sufficient to power all of New York City would spread over 4,000 square kilometers of offshore terrain — 40 by 40 miles, or a land area roughly equivalent to half of Yellowstone National Park. A windfarm of a more typical size, one rated 300 megawatts, say, would occupy a five by five mile swath of ocean, and could power 1.5% of the city. “That’s a start,” says Sclavounos. —Leda Zimmerman

POSTED MARCH 30, 2010
 
boyfalldown said:
Where did I say that then? And where did I ever even mention wind power?.

All I've ever said is fusion is a long way from viable - and proving its self as the panacea you claim it is. I'm lost how, given the difficulties with it you claim it as proven

Appologies, I got you mixed up with another poster.

It's proven in that without it none of us would exist. The technology needs work but it's going to happen.
 
Back
Top