PDA

View Full Version : Green energy


G-CPTN
19th Dec 2006, 16:39
So how much energy is consumed in the manufacture of the machinery required to fell and transport the trees and then 'chip' them ready for burning (apart from the energy consumed in building the generating plant?)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6192915.stm

Standard Noise
19th Dec 2006, 16:53
Unless it's solar power, wind or tidally generated, it ain't actually 'green'.

tony draper
19th Dec 2006, 16:56
Well surely that is just second hand nuclear power Mr Noise, E=Mc2 hydrogen to helium and all that jazz.
:rolleyes:

G-CPTN
19th Dec 2006, 16:59
The bloke with the whiskers was on the wireless yesterday when it was announced about the hooge wind farm off Kent, pointing out that for every wind farm there has to be an associated conventional power-station on inefficient standby in case the wind should cease and then the conventional power would be cranked-up to fill the short-fall before the lights went out. His discourse sounded very convincing criticism of the false economy of wind power.

Standard Noise
19th Dec 2006, 17:05
Well surely that is just second hand nuclear power Mr Noise, E=Mc2 hydrogen to helium and all that jazz.
:rolleyes:

Yes, yes, yes, but it doesn't create any waste, or at least that's what the tree huggers would have us believe. But, hang on here, I'm not advocating we all go lincoln green here. I live 40 odd miles from Hinckley Point and as far as I'm concerned, they should build a new one.

tony draper
19th Dec 2006, 17:08
As I understand it we would need about 300,000 of those turbine thingies chuffing away like gooduns to keep the lights aglow in this Green and pleasent land of ours.
A small nuclear power station on the outskirts of every town is the trick.
:rolleyes:

Grainger
19th Dec 2006, 17:15
I'm fairly certain that trees contain plenty of carbon, so burning them will still produce carbon dioxide . . .

Instead of looking for ways - green or otherwise - of generating more and more electricity, why not cut down on the amount of waste ?

Not piddling little bits like mobile phone chargers or low energy lightbulbs. Most of the energy savings claimed for domestic indoor use are actually offset by the fact that energy used indoors helps heat the home, reducing the fuel used in the central heating system.

No, let's start by cutting down the horrendous waste of energy that is used in exterior lighting. Our local supermarket petrol station has thousands of watts of floodlights blazing away 24 hours a day, seven days a week. How the hell changing a 60 watt bulb that's used for 2.7 hours a day is supposed to offset that lot defeats me.

Most exterior lighting (such as those 500 Watt "security" lights) is appallingly designed and installed. Directing the light only where it is needed and switching it on only when it is needed would result in a much pleasanter environment for everyone with no loss in security.

If it were water leaking out over the road and into other people's property, the waste and nuisance would be obvious but for some reason that I have yet to understand people seem to accept energy in the form of light being pissed out into space without comment.

G-CPTN
19th Dec 2006, 17:22
In Skandihoolia (before the onset of wind-propellors), local communities had their own generating stations consuming waste, straw, fallen timber (though Denmark has precious little standing timber left) etc which produced HEAT (transferred to hot water which was circulated to nearby housing) and ELECTRICITY. Being 'local' it was able to respond to demand much better (though of course it wasn't the ONLY source of electricity. As the fuel was locally produced little energy was expended transporting it.

Little-by-little individual homesteads began acquiring their own wind generator and then the habit spread to industrial-sized installations.

Bear in mind that Denmark has no endemic coal (and very little lignite).

Standard Noise
19th Dec 2006, 17:24
Turn off the street lights!
Controversial, but do we really need them? I'm happy to eat more carrots, put a flashing LED collar on Lucifer and I can use those free headlights the nice people at Land Rover gave me when I bought my car. I don't need street lighting. They claim that street lighting is necessary for security, tosh and piffle, more coppers on the streets are better for that. Turn the street lights off and save the planet!

Oh hang on, I feel quesy, I've just come over all green.:uhoh:

Grainger
19th Dec 2006, 17:33
Too right - every human is equipped with incredibly efficient energy-saving devices. One per eyeball, in fact.

If allowed to dark-adapt, the human eye becomes up to ten thousand times more sensitive, and in fact requires very little ambient light: a level equivalent to moonlight will do.

Of course, if you have bright lights continually shone in your eyes they never adapt, meaning you need more light to see, meaning more bright lights, making the eyes even less dark-adapted . . .

Turn the fecking things off !

Loose rivets
19th Dec 2006, 18:40
It's a little known fact that the human eyeball can detect a single photon. Of course, it's obvious when you think about it. However, it takes about 6 photons to allow the recipient to perceive a speck of light. (A speck is a technical term. ) To put this in perspective, a 100 watt bulb throws out (another technical term I'm afraid.) Throws out 100,000,000,000. photons in a billionth of a second. So seeing 6 is not too bad I suppose. Now, we can do one of two things...

Either we can accept this 600 % waste and build more lighting infrastructure, or we can set about breeding humans that can perceive one photon, thus allowing an entire town to be illuminated by one candle.

It seems that on a clear night, the Mk I eyeball can see a candle at 14k. Of course, there would be more clear nights if we cut power generation.

Sadly, the power companies won't agree to night cutbacks. They need the night-time load to act as a giant ballast resistor for their gennies. It seems that it is very difficult to spin them down, only to restart them at sparrow's the next morning.

What we could do of course is to build a mountain in Kent. Well, more of a volcano really. During the night we could pump water into it, and let Mr Gravity give us power during the day. It has of course been done...by the Welsh!!! But they had one of the biggest holes to start with. (No jokes please)



Apologies to Brian Clegg. "Light Years." A super little book on light. ISBN 0-7499-2197-8

Capt. Queeg
19th Dec 2006, 19:11
Wind farms = green energy = bullsh!t.

Not only are all those towers and props an unsightly abomination on God's green earth but the combined turbine drag from tens of thousands of the bastards is gradually slowing down the rotation of the earth.

True.

G-CPTN
19th Dec 2006, 19:24
Wind farms the combined turbine drag from tens of thousands of the bastards is gradually slowing down the rotation of the earth.
True.
That was an actual objection raised by one old dear at the enquiry into planning for one wind-farm, that all those turbines were adversely affecting the wind . . .

reynoldsno1
19th Dec 2006, 19:30
a level equivalent to moonlight will do.

and your seretonin (the happy hormone) levels will plummet, which means you won't synthesize melatonin during the day, and you end up an even sadder insomniac ....

brain fade
19th Dec 2006, 20:04
I had an idea.:)

You know those all too rare hot, still days during summer?

Power up the windturbines and get a nice cooling breeze going.

Whaddyathink?:}

Grainger
19th Dec 2006, 20:59
Seasonal Affective Disorder. I see what you did there, very clever.

Thing is, exposure to high light levels 24/7 can be equally harmful. Disrupts the normal sleep cycle, people get tired, unsociable and generally carry on downright cranky. Give us back the dark skies.

tilewood
19th Dec 2006, 23:05
Do these whirly spinning thingies save more power than is used in building them in the first place?!! :hmm:

barit1
20th Dec 2006, 03:13
Seems to me in the moderate latitudes, the westerlies would if anything speed up the Earth's rotation when encountering a windmill! :cool:

Grainger
20th Dec 2006, 09:46
tilewood; As I understand it, they pay back the energy used in their construction in under a year.

But getting Sainsbury's to switch their fecking floodlights off when the Sun's shining would start saving the energy immediately. Grrr :mad:

Chimbu chuckles
20th Dec 2006, 10:30
Green energy?

Less than 3% of the CO2 extant is anthropogenic...and a tiny % of that 3% is caused by aeroplanes...so much for anthropogenic GW.

Everytime a volcano burps more allegedly 'bad' stuff gets flung up into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution put there.

Naturally occurring bushfires...that burn in their thousands around the world all the time put more CO2 into the atmosphere than we could ever hope to remove fecking around with windfarms and sundry other green ideas.

Wind farms kill lots of birds and bats etc...hardly very environmentally friendly...in fact when you realise that the environmental movement managed to get DDT banned because it threatened birds, specifically birds of prey, you wonder why they are not going spastic about the very idea of wind farms let alone promoting them. Of course DDT was proved harmless to people and wildlife and its banning has been responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million people so far from Malaria etc...so perhaps its no real surprise that the greenies are keeping a low profile on the deleterious effects of windfarms on their feathered friends.

Wind farms are a blight on the landscape and serve no usefull purpose.

The environmental movement has a lot to answer for.:mad:

High Wing Drifter
20th Dec 2006, 11:14
Less than 3% of the CO2 extant is anthropogenic...and a tiny % of that 3% is caused by aeroplanes...so much for anthropogenic GW.
According to the IPCC Special Report on Aviation, it accounts for 2.45% of all anthropogenic emissions and 13% for all transport related emissions.

Smeagol
20th Dec 2006, 13:39
Quote:

Wind farms kill lots of birds and bats etc...hardly very environmentally friendly...

B*****ks !!

Suggest you read the Environmental Impact Assessments for existing and proposed windfarms becore commenting.

However, not sure that windfarms are anything more than a current 'fad', despite being involved with the latest offshore development!

As for turning off street (and other) major lighting, not sure that that helps as I beleive that it merely utilises available power that is required at other times (ie daylight hours), so no overall reduction in generating capacity would result.

Grainger
20th Dec 2006, 14:50
But a large part of the windfarm proposal is the development of storage capacity to even out the fluctuations in wind generation. Pumped storage schemes, hydrogen generation, whatever.

In which case, you could use the same principle to store electricity generated at night instead of just pissing it away into space.

MagnusP
20th Dec 2006, 14:58
Turn off the street lights!
Not only saving energy, but making astronomy a bloody sight easier.
http://www.lightpollution.it/worldatlas/pages/fig1.htm

Cheers,
Magnus

Smeagol
20th Dec 2006, 16:47
Quote:

"But a large part of the windfarm proposal is the development of storage capacity to even out the fluctuations in wind generation. Pumped storage schemes, hydrogen generation, whatever."

This would be nice if it happened but doubt that it is either practical or seriously being considered at present. Not aware of any such schemes directly linked to any major wind energy project at this time.

haughtney1
20th Dec 2006, 16:50
According to the IPCC Special Report on Aviation, it accounts for 2.45% of all anthropogenic emissions and 13% for all transport related emissions.

Is that in the UK or worldwide?

Has anyone calculated the amount of CO2 man produces through respiration? (I imagine some greenies will advocate a cull of humans to keep emissions down:hmm: )

Melliandra
20th Dec 2006, 17:06
tilewood; As I understand it, they pay back the energy used in their construction in under a year.

I'm afraid they pay it off in under a year if they are constantly at max use. As this is an impossible feat it takes an awful lot longer.

Thankfully, however, they will eventually pay for themselves, which is more than can be said for photovolatic cells (solar panels). In their usable lifetime they will save less energy than was used to create them... So much for green energy.

G-CPTN
20th Dec 2006, 17:21
Quote:
"But a large part of the windfarm proposal is the development of storage capacity to even out the fluctuations in wind generation.
Tunnels in which WIND could be stored?
Now THERE'S an idea!

befree
20th Dec 2006, 18:03
Low energy bulbs do save a lot of money now they are only 1-2. I have even seen 2 of 1 in some shops. Each could save 3-6 per year when replacing a bulb that is on every evening.

No power gerneration is totally green. Some like coal is mostly carbon and is the worst. Natural gas is a lot better as it contains more hydrogen that becomes water when burnt.

Storage is only needed for windpower when we genratate a large amount of power from it. While only 4% of our electric comes from renewables it is not a problem, they just burn a less coal.

Airlines being forced into the emissions trading system in 2011. This means saving energy at home would allow more people to fly. The idea is that CO2 will be cut where it is cheapest to do and they will sell their permits to others.

Grainger
20th Dec 2006, 18:25
Domestic light bulbs are typically used only about 2.7 hours a day, and usually when the occupants are at home, and it's night time, which in the UK means that most of the time the central heating will be on. As already commented, the heat generated by internal lighting remains in the home and reduces the load on the heating system, so most of that saving is fictitious.

Please, the only reason the government keeps bleating on about low energy light bulbs is because that way they can blame the public (as usual), and so that people can "be seen to be doing something".
[Any bets on who's got shares in the light bulb companies ? ]

I calculated that the supermarket petrol station I mentioned earlier wastes about £8000 pounds worth of energy a year (floodlights on 24/7). Several thousand watts on all the time - puts your piddly 60 watt bulb into perspective.

By all means let's all do our part, but let's target the really big wasters first.

barit1
20th Dec 2006, 21:22
Tunnels in which WIND could be stored?
Now THERE'S an idea!

No shortage of wind in THIS 4um! :E

EDIT: Check out http://www.junkscience.com/