Windfarms
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A diversion. My pet hate in this whole debate is the term "renewable energy." There is no such thing. All energy in the universe was created 14.8 billion years ago (approximately).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then you can explain to me why on a perfectly still day the blades are turning.
Most of the time when i fly over any wind generators they seem to be stationary. As far as i'm aware the generators that need to take power from the grid are heating the blades and gearboxes in the colder places.
...Anyway, since yesterday the combined 'power' output of all of south eastern Australia's wind generators has not exceeded 15% of potential capacity at any time. What an idiotic power system..
Wind Energy in Australia | Aneroid
.
...Anyway, since yesterday the combined 'power' output of all of south eastern Australia's wind generators has not exceeded 15% of potential capacity at any time. What an idiotic power system..
Wind Energy in Australia | Aneroid
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My pet hate in this whole debate is the term "renewable energy." There is no such thing.
Fujii I beg to differ. If you take say coal or gas or uranium as examples they are not renewable in the sense that after they are used they are finished having provided us with energy and and a nasty bag of pollutants.
Wind, hydro,wave and solar provide us with energy and no pollution. They don't change form and are still there to be recharged with energy from the sun which we can harvest add infinitum.
Fujii I beg to differ. If you take say coal or gas or uranium as examples they are not renewable in the sense that after they are used they are finished having provided us with energy and and a nasty bag of pollutants.
Wind, hydro,wave and solar provide us with energy and no pollution. They don't change form and are still there to be recharged with energy from the sun which we can harvest add infinitum.
Last edited by rutan around; 3rd Sep 2014 at 21:49. Reason: Forgot the quote from Fujii
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
Aahh, but you are not factoring in the "feel good factor" of people "thinking" they are buying "Green power" - and paying through the nose for it !
A bit like the $100,000 a year Greenies, they earn $100,000, send of a $100 membership to Greenpeace every year to get the "feel good factor" and call themselves Greenies
Aahh, but you are not factoring in the "feel good factor" of people "thinking" they are buying "Green power" - and paying through the nose for it !
A bit like the $100,000 a year Greenies, they earn $100,000, send of a $100 membership to Greenpeace every year to get the "feel good factor" and call themselves Greenies
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind, hydro,wave and solar provide us with energy and no pollution.
Uranium - dirty when it comes out, dirty when it gets put back into the ground. The ground can't be used for anything else if uranium is in the ground anyway so why not dig it up and use it ? No emissions when generating electricity.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my B-I-L, a scientist, wind farms are a total waste of money, maintenance costs far out way the amount of electricity they produce and they never recover their capital outlay. They also take a terrible toll on migrating birds, but the Greens won't talk about that!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you get the book I have mentioned before and read it.
Nuke power and what it gives and what it leaves it's the only way to go if that is of course your serious about c02. Plus the yanks don't but France dose recycle spent fuel rods so they can be re used. When you consider that a USA nuke carrier runs for 25 years and has only just I've 3 handfuls or fuel what more can you say
Nuke power and what it gives and what it leaves it's the only way to go if that is of course your serious about c02. Plus the yanks don't but France dose recycle spent fuel rods so they can be re used. When you consider that a USA nuke carrier runs for 25 years and has only just I've 3 handfuls or fuel what more can you say
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but by god they are dirty to make the equipment required to generate the electricity, especially solar panels !
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but you were saying the 4 methods have no pollution.
We know Coal, Gas and Oil power stations produce CO2 and other chemicals, and waste.
Re Uranium, plenty of places to bury it, especially since any facility will need to be built anyway to get rid of nuclear waste from missile warhead production and other things. Why not bury it in Nevada, after all the place is contaminated already !
We know Coal, Gas and Oil power stations produce CO2 and other chemicals, and waste.
Re Uranium, plenty of places to bury it, especially since any facility will need to be built anyway to get rid of nuclear waste from missile warhead production and other things. Why not bury it in Nevada, after all the place is contaminated already !
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rutan around
It is basic physics.
The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.
The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Next door to the wrong neighbours
Posts: 243
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...They also take a terrible toll on migrating birds, but the Greens won't talk about that!
Should Wind Turbines Be Allowed To Kill Eagles? Debate Ratchets Up With Bird Group Lawsuit
Bird Enthusiasts Sue Feds For Wind Turbines Killing Eagles | The Daily Caller
Denmark, Spain and Sth Africa have expressed concerns for rare bird populations that have been decimated by WT farms and see their impending extinction as inevitable.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1400 more of them in the snowy yer that's just great. I guess the tax payer will subadise them as we'll sievert funds from roads and hospital etc. the the power provider has to by law buy there power weather they won't to or not at a higher rate that's the passed onto the consumer. If they so good and so efficient why do the need to be subsidized and why can't they produce power at a lower cost. It has nothin to do with c02 emissions more to do with greed cause we can You and I pay for it in the end
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accounting for CO2 production in Australia
My understanding has always been that Australia has taken "CO2" in coal production by us in calculating total C production as a "world production" basis. A bit hard to find the actual reference, as the greenies have been hiding this material and it is likely the real "ramp up" of totals.
The only reference I have found is:
However, this is an aviation forum and I believe the issues are:
The only reference I have found is:
Cumulative historical contribution
The World Resources Institute estimates that Australia was responsible for 1.1% of all CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2002.[2] Australia has a correspondingly tiny share of the global population, roughly a third of a percent as of 2013.
Projected contribution
According to the no-mitigation scenario in the Garnaut Climate Change Review, Australia's share of world emissions, at 1.5% in 2005, declines to 1.1% by 2030, and to 1% by 2100.[3]
Confounding factors
The import and export of goods confounds equitable measurements of emissions, particularly in the context of endeavouring to reach a global agreement on emissions reduction based on contraction and convergence. Australian emissions are monitored on a production rather than a consumption basis. This means that the emissions from the manufacture of goods imported into and consumed within Australia, for example many motor vehicles, are allocated to the country of manufacture. Similarly, Australia produces aluminium for export which requires substantial amounts of electricity which is produced by greenhouse gas emitting coal-fired power stations. While the aluminium is mainly consumed overseas, the emissions of its production are allocated to Australia. Geoff Carmody argues we need a consumption based emissions trading scheme.[4]
Indirect contribution
Australia is a major exporter of coal, particularly from Newcastle, Australia.[5] The coal is produced from coal mining in Australia. The greenhouse gas emissions in other countries from the proposed increase in coal export capacity of the major Australian ports will greatly outweigh the proposed reductions in Australia's emissions from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. While Australia imposes safeguards on the export of uranium, it does not impose any requirements for carbon capture and storage of greenhouse gas emissions of exported coal. Australia thus contributes substantially more to the global warming which, according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review will lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Murray Darling Basin as they have existed during recorded history to date.
Australia is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, another fossil fuel.[6]
The World Resources Institute estimates that Australia was responsible for 1.1% of all CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2002.[2] Australia has a correspondingly tiny share of the global population, roughly a third of a percent as of 2013.
Projected contribution
According to the no-mitigation scenario in the Garnaut Climate Change Review, Australia's share of world emissions, at 1.5% in 2005, declines to 1.1% by 2030, and to 1% by 2100.[3]
Confounding factors
The import and export of goods confounds equitable measurements of emissions, particularly in the context of endeavouring to reach a global agreement on emissions reduction based on contraction and convergence. Australian emissions are monitored on a production rather than a consumption basis. This means that the emissions from the manufacture of goods imported into and consumed within Australia, for example many motor vehicles, are allocated to the country of manufacture. Similarly, Australia produces aluminium for export which requires substantial amounts of electricity which is produced by greenhouse gas emitting coal-fired power stations. While the aluminium is mainly consumed overseas, the emissions of its production are allocated to Australia. Geoff Carmody argues we need a consumption based emissions trading scheme.[4]
Indirect contribution
Australia is a major exporter of coal, particularly from Newcastle, Australia.[5] The coal is produced from coal mining in Australia. The greenhouse gas emissions in other countries from the proposed increase in coal export capacity of the major Australian ports will greatly outweigh the proposed reductions in Australia's emissions from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. While Australia imposes safeguards on the export of uranium, it does not impose any requirements for carbon capture and storage of greenhouse gas emissions of exported coal. Australia thus contributes substantially more to the global warming which, according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review will lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Murray Darling Basin as they have existed during recorded history to date.
Australia is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, another fossil fuel.[6]
- Has casa properly protected us from the wind turbines?;
- Do the wind turbines affect aviation?;
- What is the proper distance from an airport;
- What protection is being made for the future?;
- Is casa being consulted by approving organisations for proper effects on aviation?;
- Are the proposers using proper and correct information from aviation savvy people?;
- Has CAAct 9A been breached by casa in respect of approvals of wind turbine farms??
- How does the movement [without approval] by 385metres in the Crookwell area, affect the actual approval and aviation? and
- Was this confirmed [post final approval] OR
- Does the constructing company and the approving organisation breach CAAct 9A?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onetrack, your assessment is spot on. I'm sitting on Rottnest right now, watching the turbine, aircraft, people, animals and birds happily co-existing. While I realize that a PhD in electrical engineering is a poor substitute for reading nutter websites, I'll nevertheless comment that the main reason for motoring some types of wind turbines is to reduce the start-up torque in light wind conditions.
In fact, motoring is common with other generation technologies, too. In a hydro system for example, it's quite common to run one or more machines as a synchronous capacitor to allow power factor correction and efficiency gains. A machine can also drive a pump, allowing water storage to be supplemented during time of excess energy availability.
If you want to look for concerns about wind turbines near major airports, consider the possible effects on radar systems due multiple, complex reflections from the structures and any metal blade components. The adaptive signal processing schemes to overcome such effects came from 'blue sky' research in radio astronomy and allied fields, and are now in routine use in new radar systems in the UK and elsewhere.
In fact, motoring is common with other generation technologies, too. In a hydro system for example, it's quite common to run one or more machines as a synchronous capacitor to allow power factor correction and efficiency gains. A machine can also drive a pump, allowing water storage to be supplemented during time of excess energy availability.
If you want to look for concerns about wind turbines near major airports, consider the possible effects on radar systems due multiple, complex reflections from the structures and any metal blade components. The adaptive signal processing schemes to overcome such effects came from 'blue sky' research in radio astronomy and allied fields, and are now in routine use in new radar systems in the UK and elsewhere.
