Wind Turbines

[Paul_B]

You can get larger turbines for roofs and land if you have it. A mate looked into it a few years ago and there was one that would operate at lower wind speeds, could be put on roofs (assuming planning permission is possible - unlikely) and provided a good chink of power when operating to the household. Also large dscale wind power turbines need a certain wind speed to operate too. If not strong enough winds around then they supposedly drain power from the grid I once got told.

Hydro is a possibility in rural or semi-rural areas. Heck I'm sure even in towns something could be done on rivers and streams too. London used to have more rivers. They are all underground now. Where are they? Are they accessible and could they be used for hydro too?

Solar comes in two forms, electrical an hot water generation. We can all do the second to provide hot water even in winter. It just needs the panels on the roof over a large enough area and a central heating and hot water system that can connect to it. My sister's house was made with it built onto the roof (built in the 70s I think). 5 out of the 8 or so houses had these solar water panels on their roofs from new. Only one is connected or ever got connected and that was many years later. The builder put them up but put in a system that couldn't work with the panels. D'oh!!

Anyway there is also ground source heating too.

All these things that take energy requirement away from fossil fuels or other remote generation means all add up and help. You are not burning as much gas to heat water if you have aa solar water panel. That is good and it does work even in winter. Anyone see that former army Major who did that green programme from down in Devon? Strawbridge IIRC.

Also there are houses being built in Scandinavian countries that are so well insulated and designed that they need very little if any heating as the heat generated by those living in them and cooking is sufficient to heat the house without burning fossil fuels. Believe it or not!! Yet over here you are lucky iif the houses in your street even have the bare minimum loft insulation that is recommended by the government let alone what is really effective. All adds up and we should all try and do something. I am one of those who would like to double loft insulation and doing other insulation solutions such as cavity wall and double or triple glazing. I'd love to be able to afford putting in those energy efficient glass windows in which reflect heat back in but let heat from the sun in. Same with cavity insulation. Not got the money though. I do however do what I can. I have one light on in the house. All electrical appliances not being used are turned off not let on standby. I put on a jumper before the heating goes on. Etc. Etc. Etc.!! Think global, act local!!

 

[Paul_B]

Fusion with current technology is kind of like the perpetual motion engine. What I mean is that it takes more energy to get it to work than you ever get out of it with current technology.

As far as nuclear plants IIRC USA have a plant that is to the same design as the Japanese one in California that is quite interesting. It sits on 4 active faults including the San Andreas and another one who's name escapes me but is long overdue a big quake.

Most countries with nuclear power generation capabilities have put a moratorium on new plants. Even those who are really into N-power such as France. It is really the only option that works at this moment in time even with its flaws IF you are really determined to reduce C emissions.

The trouble with Hydrogen cells is as you said the network. They had gas cars that have been greener and cheaper than petrol and diesel but it never took off completely except as a dual fuel solution. Reason?? The network was not universal like petrol and diesel is. That shows the will for alternatives is not there to make it work. Probably no large company wants to be first to accept the risk. Technology implementation is harder in some fields than others.

 

[Swallow]

Nuclear is only real one to use at the moment until Fusion power works.

You do realise a nuclear power station is just a steam engine?

 

[Ronnie]

Roof turbines are a waste of money - the turbulence sweeping up of your roof will make the turbine ineffective. They need good laminar flow which means a tall pole and no large buildings or trees nearby. Check out homebrew wind turbine resources like Scoraig Wind.

I am undecided on the efficacy of industrial scale wind turbine installations. I know for a fact that there are plenty of landowners making serious money out of them - and money talks. But I've heard differing accounts as to the total capacity they actually produce.

Hydro is a resource which has pretty much been exploited as far as it can be in this country, and interrupting the flow of watercourses is not without environmental and ecological repercussions.

Solar panels are a good solution. Putting panels on every roof in the UK would go a long way to filling the energy gap. They're getting cheaper with mass production, and this trend should continue. Unfortunately, they're most effective in the summer when energy demand is lower.

I agree that wave and tidal projects have the potential for massive power generation, and it's interesting that they haven't yet been commercially realised. Moving parts in such a hostile environment tend to have a high failure rate. There are problems with habitat destruction in tidal energy projects - estuaries tend to be quite ecologically sensitive.

Nuclear is a nightmare as far as I'm concerned. It's a heavily subsidised industry and there have been all sorts of accounting shenanigans to make it look cheaper. If you look at total costs of nuclear energy factoring in all costs from new build to decommissioning and waste disposal, they are totally uneconomic. The £/kw numbers you commonly see represent build and run costs only - not cleaning up the mess afterwards. And that's not taking into account major disasters like Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima which have literally incalculable costs associated with them.



The real answer is power-down. It's not a particularly pleasant prospect for many - but it's going to have to happen whether we like it or not. We currently burn through a cubic mile of oil per year as a planet - and oil production has peaked. Whole nation states going bankrupt is a direct consequence of that.

We live in interesting times.

 

[Swallow]

Let's face it, the biggest problem with this planet is the fact that it's inhabited by humans.

Graham

Don't agree. The biggest problem is the lack of new thoughts. Most thoughts are just recycled versions of old thoughts. As mentioned previously a nuclear power station is just a steam engine. How 20th century is that?

 

[Retired Member southey]

Don't agree. The biggest problem is the lack of new thoughts. Most thoughts are just recycled versions of old thoughts. As mentioned previously a nuclear power station is just a steam engine. How 20th century is that?

but it works so why change it till we can do away with it completely ?

 

[Swallow]

but it works so why change it till we can do away with it completely ?

That post isn't about nuclear power at all. The nuclear power was just a handy of example of something dressed up as technologically advanced and new when it isn't really.

The post is about lack of creativity (new thoughts), so unless you are saying "Why have new ideas until you are really forced to?" I think you misunderstood.

Eventually it would have to be replaced by something, which means a new idea is needed. But if more people thought out of the box, there would be more new ideas and we advance faster in just about every area of life.

 

[Retired Member southey]

I guess what I ment is that you cannot just bin old tech or ways of doing things, unless we all of a sudden arrive at the utopian point of binning monies and wealth, and all start working for the betterment of our race other wise we arnt going to able to access the necessary resources to enable the kind of tech advances that would thrust us in to a sustainable world,

 

[Paul_B]

Ronnie - Solar power does not just mean electricity production but solar can mean hot water production. That is viable in the UK even in winter. For example it is possible to warm enough water to have a hot bath just by the power of a stream, tubing and the knowledge of heat exchanger technology (fridge in reverse I think). That uses loads of small heat exchanges to create one large one in the water of the bath. I think what I'm getting at is a load of small changes add up to one effective big one. By using solar energy to create hot water we are taking that function away from fossil fuels in the household (gas fired boilers) and using renewable sources to do so. If every house had that I do wonder what the carbon reduction would be. Small change but if enough do it could become big change.

You can still use more local wind power. Perhaps make smaller scale more efficient it is better than subsidized large scale so far away from the end users that you lose a significant generated power through transmission loss. That equates to loss of efficiency over the whole system. We need local and my contention is current systems favours the wrong beneficiaries. If it is so good then businesses should be able to fund them themselves. Government money should be used for developing technology on alternatives. IIRC in the early days of renewable energy the government funded all sorts of tech from wave, tidal, wind and solar. Then they reviewed it all and decided that since wind power was further along the development line almost all of the money went on that. We had a good bit of tech for wave power that was close to pilot scale back in the 60s in a Uni department in the northeast England or one in the eastern side of Scotland IIRC. Think it was 60s. Anyway before my time really but I remember a documentary about it. Seems the research funding was stopped and it all went towards wind power. IIRC is was a flexible snake system that was free to move to get the most out of the waves present.

There was a large pilot scale test don on wave power on the eastern coast. A large floating box system. There was a large storm that side and it came off its anchors and beached. The test was over and it was beyond repair i think. Not sure but the research was also stopped I think.

Anyone watch that "how green is your..." programme with the former REME major called Strawbridge and his family trying the good life thing in Devon or Cornwall. They looked into all manner of "green" technology. One of the things they did was use a stream from a spring that ran through their property to create a waterwheel electricity generation system. They got a good deal of their electricity sorted that way. It was all about the channelling the flow right. Think they did it well on an industrial scale throughout the northern England in the industrial revolution. This was a small scale version. How many such water courses are there? Why can't they be used like this?? Might not provide ALL the needs of the house but every little bit helps surely?? Put it this way, If you could halve or quarter your electricity bill would you think that was worth it?? Scale that up a bit, add other tech on a local scale and you start to build up renewables and that is without as many large windfarms too. just an idea.

 

[santaman2000]

...As far as replacement for petrol/diesel, battery/hybrid cars are a complete joke. Now hydrogen - thats the way to go. not only will a small hydrogen unit power your car, but it could power your home as well! Major problem is getting a distribution network set up...

That's the catch 22. No one is going to spend money to build and stock the fuel stations until enough customers have bought the cars. And no one will buy the cars until there are adequate fuel stations.

 

[santaman2000]

...Nuclear is a nightmare as far as I'm concerned... And that's not taking into account major disasters like Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima which have literally incalculable costs associated with them...

I think you mean Tree Mile Island. I agree when they go wrong it's HUGE. Having said that though you do have to remember that those are only three examples of them going wrong. EVER. In over 60 years. And the technology is getting better. Perhaps if the moratoriums mentioned earlier were lifted, we could build new ones and take the older more dangerous one off-line.

 

[John Fenna]

OK - for my money Nuke power is a non starter...
But wind farms are not the answer - ugly, intrusive and according to some research, a health hazzard for wildlife and actually costing more in energy terms to make, transport, build and operate, destroy the environment they are built on (our local ones had to have huge concrete rafts poured to stabilize the moorland they were built on!) and on top of all that only work when the wind blows...
as the wind is not constant the turbines remain static for long periods and so cannot replace "traditional" powerstations...
Photo Voltaic systems are the way forward!
Clad every ugly building - from factories and 1960s tower blocks to farmers barns, bungalows, warehouses etc etc etc in solar panels and you have the problem cracked - without making our beatiful country ugly.
OK add some off shore wave power platforms to help top everything up when it aint too sunny and bobs yer uncle!
Wind power is only cheap because our landscape is paying for it and the (mis)government is subsidising forign companies to build the turbines on British soil to meet the "green" energy targets set by some unelected crew in a forign country!
Rant over.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Wind Turbines are hawked out to land owners by ruthless, cold-calling salesmen who promise the earth.
"Green energy" my ar5e! It's a get rich quick scheme for a handful.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

How about canalizing all the hot air pumped out in this thread.............:.... with such a limitless supply, it's gotta be a winner.

 

[Toddy]

How about canalizing all the hot air pumped out in this thread.............:.... with such a limitless supply, it's gotta be a winner.

Scotland already produces enough that we have an energy surplus at times that is exported to the grid; indeed a couple of months ago there was so much that the grid couldn't take it and it had to be disposed of.

I really question solar panels, certainly in this area. We have months of heavy overcast skies where the frost doesn't lift, where nothing green grows because there is simply not enough solar energy, and yet magically there'll be enough to fill bathloads of hot water ? I seriously doubt it.

Water, wind, constantly improving technology and being less wasteful of energy is our best bet I reckon.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[PaulSanderson]

Being a wind turbine engineer, Im all for them...however, they have a place and are not suitable for installation in any location. The majority of 'farmable' wind is generally offshore, so it makes sense to have them out to see. I work on the new 3.6mW offhsore turbines, and they are remarkably efficient. In addition, they pay for themselves in terms of energy used to create them in less than 8 months.On the subject of micro-scale wind turbines, again can be remarkably efficient given the correct site. That being said, they onyl generate when the wind blows of course, so some type of storage is needed for the electricity generated. Again, if any of you are thinking of installing a micro-turbine, its worth considering what type. On a fairly exposed site, a conventional horizontal-axis turbine on a bearing for yaw should suffice. If you want to capture the slightest wind, and live in a relativly built up area, then a Vertical-axis wind turbine is best (although it struggles in hgh winds).

The argument relating to pylons being strewn across the country relates to the fact that our national grid is crumbling and can no longer deal with our demand for power. Irrespective of what power source we use, wind, tidal, nuclear, we still ned these turbines...the infrastructure still needs to be updates.

As for eye-sore...what would people see...a power station chugging our crap into the environment, or wind turbines?? I guess in a lot of cases, its a 'not in my back yard' mentality which is sad. Its ok for someone else to have it though.

As for Rik_uk's comment that they dont work, thats complete nonesens...obviously doesnt know much about them. Each turbine at the Sheringham Wind Shoal for example has a rating of 3.6mW at a wind speed of just 12m/s. We have had them running at almost 5mW...whats not working about that?? In fact, the filtering system in the monopiles (yellow bit) is so good that power generated by conventional means is sent to out to be 'cleaned up'...so even better than normal gas turbines/nuclear/biomass/coal fires power stations. HOWEVER, they obviously only generate when the wind is blowing so not 100% reliable and predictable.

 

[PaulSanderson]

and to add...wind power isnt the only solution. we need to utilise our natural assets and combine them. We're an island surrounded by water, so it makes sense to incorporate tidal power. nuclear would be a great option as its efficient etc...however, the bubble has burst on that despite what our thoughts are on it so thats out of the window.

 

[sandbender]

"...In addition, they pay for themselves in terms of energy used to create them in less than 8 months..."

Is there a break down of that somewhere? I'd be curious to look it over.

 

[PaulSanderson]

Is there a break down of that somewhere? I'd be curious to look it over.

Yeah sure i'll dig some data out. What a lot of people get confused over is the actual cost in terms of money and not energy used to create them. They certainly dont pay for themselves in terms of money very quickly...that takes nearly 10 years depending on the model of turbine and where it is located. Some poorly sited turbines will obviously take a long long time to pay for themselves...the media and anti-wind farm lobbyists love that!! lol

 

[PaulSanderson]

here you go...read through this tech report. This was actually from a 3.0mW turbine. The 'sweep' of the blades and hence amount of wind 'harvested' is significantly less than the newer turbines we have today. 3.6mW are becoming the norm, but the 6mW direct drive (no gearbox and hence more reliable) is on the horizon. This report coincidentally states the turbines on average pay for the energy consumed during their manufacture in 6.8 months, not 8 months as I stated earlier.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/32748.pdf

Again, I reiterate that this does not equate to cost in monetary terms as I have no data on that.

Hope the info goes some way to calm the anti-wind lobbyists who often blow enough hot air to power a wind farm!!