Energy Production

[Stumurf]

so from what i can tell, thanks to other threads, there are those that want to give wind farms a chance, (not exclusively it seems) so that the technology can develop and hopefully become more efficient in time while addressing the "no legacy" that other power production leaves us with and minimising the CO2 output... and then there are those that are unwilling to have landscapes spoilt by a technology that does nothing but put money in the pocket of the developers and cannot meet the curent need demanded by the current wasteful practises our "modern" lifestyles request. And then theres the (IMO) small mided opinion that the technology cannot compete on the cost per KW.... (isnt that the case of any new technology initially?)

guess which side of the fence i am on..

So....

Are there any other area's of new "green" technology that we all agree needs to be put into production, and is there any that we will all allow to invade and maybe spoil our landscapes?

[dozerboy]

Wave power and Solar power.

Although if all houses were properly insulated the need for energy could be seriously reduced.

More investment in hybrid cars, to reduce emissions, as you'll never stop people driving.

[j4bberw0ck]

there are those that want to give wind farms a chance, ....... so that the technology can develop and hopefully become more efficient in time while addressing the "no legacy" that other power production leaves us with and minimising the CO2 output...

Two points. (1) the big problem with wind farms is only partly their efficiency and the fact that the wind doesn't always blow. It's also (2) that it isn't practical to store the power. Sure, you can perhaps turn down the output at a fossil-fuelled power station elsewhere for a short while, but they work most efficiently when the demand is constant; and why would you turn down a cheaper source of power to pay more for wind-generated power?

theres the (IMO) small mided opinion that the technology cannot compete on the cost per KW.... (isnt that the case of any new technology initially?)

No. New technologies compete, and live or die, on greater efficiency or utility. Wind power is different because of the Renewables Obligation which forces power companies to buy a minimum percentage of their power from renewable sources - which effectively, means wind power - and gives us all higher power bills. Industry, too, which spins off into competitiveness and job losses.

Are there any other area's of new "green" technology that we all agree needs to be put into production, and is there any that we will all allow to invade and maybe spoil our landscapes?

It can't be put into production yet because it isn't there, but the saviour of the planet won't be hybrid cars, it'll be nuclear fusion, if it's ever perfected. That's where the big research money should be going. IMO, of course.

[j4bberw0ck]

Interesting figures:

CO2 emissions, UK, 1990 - 2004, by source

CH4 (methane) emissions, UK, 1990 - 2004, by source


Both Excel spreadsheets. The Management Information fiends will enjoy it, and there are more than a few surprises in there (surprises to me, anyway).

[Stumurf]

have you posted this info in the wrong thread j4bberw0ck or misread my post?

It can't be put into production yet because it isn't there, but the saviour of the planet won't be hybrid cars, it'll be nuclear fusion, if it's ever perfected. That's where the big research money should be going. IMO, of course.

Sorry.. missed this bit....

[Rheghead]

Two points. (1) the big problem with wind farms is only partly their efficiency and the fact that the wind doesn't always blow. It's also (2) that it isn't practical to store the power. Sure, you can perhaps turn down the output at a fossil-fuelled power station elsewhere for a short while, but they work most efficiently when the demand is constant; and why would you turn down a cheaper source of power to pay more for wind-generated power?

What does it matter if their efficiency is only about 30%? I doubt if other power stations will fare any better. Firstly you have the chemical/atomic energy to electrical inefficiency, subject to all the same thermal losses as windfarms and the inefficiency seen when the plant goes to outage due to maintenance or running at lower capacities inorder to fill demand when needed.

It is also worth mentioning that in terms of fuel efficiency that has to be paid for then windfarms are infinitely efficient as there is no fuel to purchase!

So fuel inefficiency when discussed in terms of a windfarm is meaningless because we aren't paying for fuel like in a car!

[j4bberw0ck]

<sigh> this is another of those posts where I wonder if I'm losing it.

Uh, Rheggers, are you serious? I can't imagine you are.........

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=Stumurf;180290]so from what i can tell, thanks to other threads, there are those that want to give wind farms a chance, (not exclusively it seems) so that the technology can develop and hopefully become more efficient in time
quote]

Stumurf
Windfarm technology is thoroughly well developed. The reason we are having windfarms thrust upon us rather than wave or tidal technology is that it is fully developed, and they are not. You can order an industrial wind tubine for yourself if your Barclaycard is up to it.
http://energy.sourceguides.com/busin.../byC/byC.shtml
It is a cheap way of satisfying political targets and of taking advantage of the artificial rewards through the subsidies offered, which we pay for through our electricity bills, and through the degradation of our landscape and way of life.
ywindythesecond

[Rheghead]

<sigh> this is another of those posts where I wonder if I'm losing it.

Uh, Rheggers, are you serious? I can't imagine you are.........

Yes I am very serious, if you aren't paying for the fuel, why would you be bothered about fuel efficiency?

[Stumurf]

[quote=ywindythesecond;180475Windfarm technology is thoroughly well developed. The reason we are having windfarms thrust upon us rather than wave or tidal technology is that it is fully developed,[/quote]

How can 30% efficiency be fully developed?

and sadly at the moment my card isn't up to it but i will certainly be purchasing one in the future, when i have managed to save an adequate deposit for one along with some solar panels.

its a shame you see it as being thrust upon us as political leverage, but we all have to disagree on somethings....

Why are we still debating Wind farms? Isn't there another thread for that?

[ywindythesecond]

[quote=Stumurf;180672]How can 30% efficiency be fully developed?

quote]

Stumurf
Wind turbines are very efficient machines in themselves. The wind just doesn't blow all the time. A wind turbine can only provide about 30% of its theoretical output because of this. And you can't predict when you will get it. And no amount of technological development will change it.
ywindythe second

[Rheghead]

A wind turbine can only provide about 30% of its theoretical output because of this. And you can't predict when you will get it. And no amount of technological development will change it.
ywindythe second

The environmentalists, wind operators and the National grid don't seem to think that is a problem though.

[j4bberw0ck]

The environmentalists don't know what they want. The generating companies know what they want: money, if the form of ROC subsidies. The Nationalists are like every other politician - they say what people want to hear in the hope that they'll get a vote or two more, and conveniently bury the bits that people don't want to hear.

[neilsermk1]

So just how many windmills are producing electricity today in Caithness, or yesterday for that matter.

[Stumurf]

And you can't predict when you will get it. And no amount of technological development will change it.
ywindythe second

I cant help thinking you still sound like wind power is supposed to be a replacement...
to me... whatever amount it generates is useful... as its clean... but...

All of the above is rhetorical, as it has nothing to do with the thread i was hoping to start...

To any mods... feel free to kill/move this thread if its only going to only continue wind turbine discussions, as there is already a thread for this....

[ywindythesecond]

I cant help thinking you still sound like wind power is supposed to be a replacement...
to me... whatever amount it generates is useful... as its clean... but...

All of the above is rhetorical, as it has nothing to do with the thread i was hoping to start...

To any mods... feel free to kill/move this thread if its only going to only continue wind turbine discussions, as there is already a thread for this....

Head, bang and wall come to mind,ok Stumurf, I give up.

[Stumurf]

give up what? its not a contest and you wont make me change my mind about wholeheartedly supporting wind technology and every other green technology as its oneof the few areas of business that is looking at the bigger long term picture (while admittedly raking n huge sums of money) but isnt that what business does.. make huge sums of money whatever the cost? at least this technology gives future generations a chance.... not that i will be contributing to them.. sadly...

[Saxo01]

thats it stumurf there are alway too many crooks