Wind power

chillidoggy

On the news this morning, electricity generated by wind farms exceeded that generated by nuclear power stations.

lloyd

As a constant over a whole year or just in surges due to this high wind?

chillidoggy

Might have been high wind, and the fact that so many of the nuclear power stations are fucked.

Bod

chillidoggy said:

Might have been high wind, and the fact that so many of the nuclear power stations are fucked.

Both factors. It's encouraging though.

lloyd

I'd stick with the nuclear to be honest, the country will have to be covered in windmills to provide a decent amount. Tidal power appeals too....the sea's always moving

Snap

Seems every good frigging hill is getting a bastard turbine stuck on it and it gets on my pip. It's a load of crap.

Phil_aka_Pip

Snap said:

Seems every good frigging hill is getting a bastard turbine stuck on it and it gets on my pip. It's a load of Government Subsidy.

Edited for accuracy

joeyowen

woo, it's a good step.

I know people complain they are ugly, but they sure are prettier than massive smoking towers and concrete structures

chillidoggy

Having read that by the time a wind turbine has been constructed, moved into place, and fixed in postion, it will never repay its carbon footprint in its working lifetime, I'm unconvinced. That said, I don't know how other power generation sources compare. To my eyes, they're a blight when they're installed on open countryside, and they're a pain in the arse for shipping round here. But of course I must be careful that I'm not in danger of sounding like a posh Green Party activist complaining vociferously about power station emissions whilst driving a Range Rover Sport on the way to the airport for a flight to the Cannes film festival. They'll be the first to shout when all the lights go out!

breakstuff

>:D<

crunchman

Wind may be useful at times but in addition to being unreliable, it's inefficient and expensive.  It's expensive long term as well as the turbines have moving parts that will wear out and need maintaining.

Solar is more sensible.  After the initial installation costs (which are getting lower all the time) the ongoing costs are close to zero.  There are plenty of places where it can be installed without using any new land.  How many buildings do we have in our cities with empty rooftops like this?



The other option that needs to be looked at is some of the alternative nuclear technology - molten salt / thorium type stuff.

Phil_aka_Pip

I think @chillidoggy is right that the carbon footprint of a wind turbine is net negative. I also believe that if govt subsidies were not available nobody would build them.

Here's the devils advocate bit. If nobody built them, there would be no ongoing development. What we're doing now is known not to be the final energy solution or even part of it, but we need to do something in order to enable the next generation. So it's part of a long term plan. IMO the main problem is the proliferation of subsidised sites, we need a few test sites to develop the technology, but we don't need every turbine that's being erected right now.

tbh I see a lot of wind turbines when I travel through Suffolk. I don't really like them, but as @joeyowen says, they're better than smoking towers and concrete structures

chillidoggy

I also believe that tidal power is very costly, probably due to the highly corrosive environment? This kind of makes sense, but the one thing it does have in its favour is a guaranteed tidal flow, unlike the windmills.

Fretwired

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I think @chillidoggy is right that the carbon footprint of a wind turbine is net negative. I also believe that if govt subsidies were not available nobody would build them.

Here's the devils advocate bit. If nobody built them, there would be no ongoing development. What we're doing now is known not to be the final energy solution or even part of it, but we need to do something in order to enable the next generation. So it's part of a long term plan. IMO the main problem is the proliferation of subsidised sites, we need a few test sites to develop the technology, but we don't need every turbine that's being erected right now.

tbh I see a lot of wind turbines when I travel through Suffolk. I don't really like them, but as @joeyowen says, they're better than smoking towers and concrete structures

I agree but there is an answer .. nuclear and clean coal - one might be built in Yorkshire.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/cash-committed-for-pioneering-clean-coal-power-station-1-6305919

Phil_aka_Pip

I wouldn't mind clean coal, but I don't trust BNFL to dispose of nuclear waste. Actually, I don't believe there is ANY safe place to put nuclear waste

crunchman

Some of the nuclear technology that uses thorium is far cleaner and does not give the same problems with waste.  I think the Chinese are putting a lot of money into research.  We are barking up the wrong tree with the new PWR type reactors we are building.

Edit: found a link

http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/21/china-and-india-in-race-to-harness-the-full-nuclear-power-of-thorium-4802929/

lloyd

I don't mind the bits and bobs of the renewable energies, but can't see them as a long term solution. They provide jobs for people and a bit of energy too, which is good. 

So many conflicting argument on the renewable energy providers efficiency, but from what I've read/seen on it nuclear power is the way to go as far as a Co2 neutral energy supply....the problem is obviously what to do with the waste, and dealing with any disasters they might throw up.

ROOG

Lots of information from David MacKay on Energy, here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/

chillidoggy

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I wouldn't mind clean coal, but I don't trust BNFL to dispose of nuclear waste. Actually, I don't believe there is ANY safe place to put nuclear waste

Chernobyl?

joeyowen

Let's just wait for Lockheeds new fission reactors

holnrew

Wind turbines will get more efficient, and I'm sure many parts are recyclable.