PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Aug 2016, 21:25   #61 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Berkshire
Age: 40
Posts: 338
Governments need to spend a certain amount of money on renewable energy. Wind turbines are very visual, politicians can stand in front of them and have their photo taken.

Until something better comes along that is where the money will go and there is a lot of money to be spent.

The ones out at sea require a lot of diesel powered maintenance never mind the cost of building them and getting them out there and erected.
Prophead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Aug 2016, 21:33   #62 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,809
Widger,
Cracking post, and bang-on the money. Our energy come from 3 sources.

1....The Sun.......Solar, from direct insolation......Wind, from the differential heating of The Earth's atmosphere, and the movement of air-masses.......Fossil Fuels.......The accumulations of photosynthetic activity, which took place in past geological time periods.

2.....Gravity.......The movement of water-bodies, caused by the tidal effects of The Sun and The Moon. Hydro-Electric, and Pumped-Storage schemes also fit in here.

3.....Earth-based nuclear generation. Fission at the moment, but hopefully fusion in years to come.

4......Sorry, almost forgot........Cockwomble energy.......Stationary 'cyclists' in 'leisure-centres', (such as our local 'David Lloyd' establishment), who should all be connected to the grid.
.
ZOOKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Aug 2016, 21:44   #63 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 330
Quote:
Wind turbines are very visual, politicians can stand in front of them and have their photo taken.
In Scotland politicians tend not to do that. In the Lowlands the entire landscape has been ruined by thousands of industrial scale monster turbines. They are largely detested.

The Pygmy Parliament has decreed that renewable generation must exceed total consumption by 2020. You can't build that much hydro in that time so all the effort has gone into putting up as many of these damned things as possible as quickly as possible.

Because wind turbines have a power factor of only 0.3, the other 70% of the time we will have to import hydro power from Norway. They are laying a pair of enormous cables from near Stavanger to near Blyth to import all that power. Crazy!
Cazalet33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Aug 2016, 23:10   #64 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,198
Quote:
Clearly solar panels would not be made because they would not be sold if the bullshitters' claim was true. Same goes for wind turbines and hydro-electric plant.
That's not necessarily true. It's about apportioning the total costs.

I live in the foothills of Sun Diego where the sun shines quite a bit. I'm considering solar (still working on buying vs leasing) to lessen my portion of the overall energy costs. That I invest in solar will (hopefully) mean MY costs are reduced. A market has developed based on individual homeowners needs, goals and willingness to pay. It doesn't speak to the overall cost or efficiency relative to other forms of energy. I'm also incentivized by the government to buy the panels with a check and tax write offs, so the overall costs of those panels will go up about $4,000.

There doesn't have to be a macro effect to develop a market, a micro (my willingness to pay for solar) one is driving it currently as relates to solar panels.
West Coast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Aug 2016, 23:46   #65 (permalink)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia.
Posts: 3,715
Quote:
Same goes for wind turbines.

I have a brother in law and a nephew, both PhD in sciences and both will disagree with you 100% Caz.


The manufacturing cost, the transport and erection costs and the way, way too much maintenance costs combined with their very poor, by comparison, return of investment, render the wind farms an expensive liability that only act as a sop to the climate change, global warming, green lobbies.


Haven't mention their effect on wild life, especially migrating birds but that is significant too.
parabellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:01   #66 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 330
Quote:
Haven't mention their [wind turbines] effect on wild life, especially migrating birds but that is significant too.
I don't believe the little domestic jobs have any effect, but I'm quite certain that the big 125m tall bruisers do.

Even bats are killed by those things. They don't fly into the blades of course, but the low pressure zone of the aerofoil ruptures their lungs leading to the poor wee buggers drowning in their own blood.

A mega-scale commercial wind farm near me was initially turned down by the County Planners, on numerous grounds. The Company appealed. In Scotland the appeal system is intrinsically corrupt. A self-employed "Reporter" is appointed personally by the Scottish Government Minister on a case by case basis. He knows that his next job depends on him delivering the required result to his Minister. The Scottish Government has a policy of festooning the countryside with these colossal turbines, so the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

In his Adjudication he dismissed every point made by the objectors and by the Council, and upheld every counterpoint made by the developer. It became pure farce when he had to deal with the proven fact that at least one Osprey, probably two, had taken up residence nearby. We don't have spotted owls or crested newts in this part of the world, but we are inordinately fond of our Ospreys. It should have been a slam dunk for the objectors, but the Reporter merely wrote a clause into his Consent saying that if two or more Ospreys are found to have been killed by one of the turbines in a 25 year period then the company must make a suitable donation to an appropriate Charity!
Cazalet33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:05   #67 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 330
Quote:
I'm also incentivized by the government to buy the panels with a check and tax write offs, so the overall costs of those panels will go up about $4,000.
I don't understand why you believe that the energy input to the manufacture of those panels increases as a result of the tax benefits.
Cazalet33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:06   #68 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,559
ZOOKER,

You forgot geothermal - driven by plate tectonics and natural nuclear activity in the earth's core.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth's Heat - Scientific American Blog Network
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:57   #69 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Berkshire
Age: 40
Posts: 338
One day we will work out fusion and then a whole new age will open up. Once that happens all these wind turbines will be obsolete. The question is do we put all our resources into fusion now or are we so far off that we will need something in between.

I am sure the future lies with fusion and better storage technology. I also think that technology will be coming from the far east.
Prophead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 09:31   #70 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,809
ORAC,

Many thanks. It was getting late and I think my mind was more on The U.K. at the time.

In fact, during the 1980s. The British Geological Survey published a special report about the potential for small-scale geothermal sources in The British Isles. It was titled 'Hot Dry Rock' if I remember correctly. I have a copy in the loft, somewhere. Several sites were discussed, including the obvious one at Bath.
ZOOKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 09:32   #71 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophead View Post
One day we will work out fusion and then a whole new age will open up. Once that happens all these wind turbines will be obsolete. The question is do we put all our resources into fusion now or are we so far off that we will need something in between.

I am sure the future lies with fusion and better storage technology. I also think that technology will be coming from the far east.
I dropped physics at school, and so far as I am concerned it's pretty much a closed book. However I'm interested in whether there would be any downsides to fusion as a method of producing clean energy.

Does it produce any radioactive waste, how radioactive would it be, and how could it be managed?

Presently we haven't found a politically / socially acceptable way of storing the waste from conventional nuclear power stations, and the quantity of waste grows annually. Surely if there is to be a waste product, before going hell for leather to embrace fusion technology, the question of how that waste is stored / disposed of needs to be addressed. it sounds like putting the cart before the horse, but is surely better to resolve the consequences of an action before embarking on a course which solves one problem, but creates another.
ATNotts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 09:57   #72 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 330
I have a ground source heat pump to heat the house.

I drilled a well to 222m below ground level. I picked that depth completely arbitrarily by asking the driller how deep I could go for a certain amount of money. I then did the calcs and satisfied myself that I can extract 9kW worth of heat for a 2kW electrical input. In other words, I get 7kW of 'free' heat.

It works well (forget the pun), but the coldest nights tend to be those bone-crunching still air nights when my wind turbine is flaccid. On those nights I have to either draw power from the grid and pay the same as everyone else or else fire up the log-burning boiler.

I wish there was some way I could make that system self-sustaining, such as with a Stirling engine, but there just isn't any of a suitable rating on the market, yet.

If I could power a Stirling engine from the heat output of the Frolig boiler I'd be in clover as I have an almost unlimited supply of logwood (with some sweaty and healthy work) and there is a nearby transport depot which specialises in woodchips and other forestry byproducts and can sell me in bulk (10 tonne lots) at very reasonable rates.
Cazalet33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 10:06   #73 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Berkshire
Age: 40
Posts: 338
I am by no means an expert on the subject either but from what I can gather, whilst it does produce waste it is much less of a problem to deal with than the waste from nuclear fission and is radioactive for a much shorter time.
Prophead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 17:46   #74 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,198
Quote:
I don't understand why you believe that the energy input to the manufacture of those panels increases as a result of the tax benefits.
I didn't say that, nor did I infer it.
West Coast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 18:19   #75 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 63
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
I didn't say that, nor did I infer it.
He claims you implied it. He inferred it.
KenV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 21:45   #76 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 77
Posts: 730
It won't be available in the UK during my lifetime but it seems a Thorium reactor will be the best we can hope for unless a totally new source of energy can be identified. In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see?
Rosevidney1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 21:51   #77 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 58
Posts: 4,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosevidney1 View Post
In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see?
Probably nothing, other than the usual crowds of huggy fluffs who try to get such projects stopped.


(I have asked the same question about Thorium reactors on this side of the pond, and I get differing answers).
Lonewolf_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2016, 22:14   #78 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 73
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosevidney1 View Post
In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see?
See:- Tesla and Lithium post346
G-CPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2016, 00:40   #79 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,051
Quote:
via Hempy, #9:
...I challenge you to spend an hour and a half of your time to watch the full documentary I posted...
Hempy, i had a look-see at the short video yer posted. In the video, when the method of fracking is shown the sound track has an explosion. Hempy, please advise if the fracking method is explosive... if it is then I will watch the main video. Other-wise, I'll just list the video under the hysterical nonsense category and not waste my time...




.
Flying Binghi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Aug 2016, 15:49   #80 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,634
Using the IPCC's CO2 figures for the production of GRP, steel and concrete and a rated power of 2.3MW for a 90m tall turbine like thisNews Detail then the turbine will generate approx. 410,000kg of CO2. It will take the turbine approx. 2.7 years for it to generate the power produced by an oil powered generator producing the same amount of CO2. Sounds like a winner right?

However, a 2.3MW unit should develop 72,533KWh over the course of a year compared to the 7,120KWh the manufacturer claims for the turbine. If oil is used to generate the 88% shortfall of the turbine v requirements then another 1,360,000kg of CO2 will be generated over the course of the year.

Comparing oil v turbine, oil produces 1,536,000kg CO2 to generate the annual 72,533KWh expected from a 2.3MW unit but it will require just over 10 turbines to fulfill the demand of one equivalent oil fired plant to give a total of 4,100,000kg of CO2. Still, on this basis the turbines will be ahead of the oil plant after approx. 2.7 years again.

Does this mean that we can close down the nasty oil plants? Unfortunately not as, to maintain base load through the year for the 321 days the turbines are not operating (88% shortfall above), we will have to have the oil plant running anyway to the tune of 1,360,000kg CO/year anyway plus their emissions when they are running at idle waiting for the turbines to stop.

Can somebody remind me why the turbines were built again please?
LowNSlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:29.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1