Wind farm industry in jeopardy due to financial demands of National Grid



Fran wrote:
> [email protected] said...
>
>>f you manage to
>>overcome all the engineering and superconductor problems
>>associated with starting, containing and maintaining a fusion
>>reaction you then have the added problem of converting the
>>kinetic energy of the released neutrons into useful form of
>>energy, electricity.
>>
>>Not the sort of thing you can build in a shed.
>>
>>

>
> Not even a very big shed?


They tend to provide insufficient shielding. :O)

--
Regards

Nick
 
Rudi Winter wrote:
> Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:14:17 GMT:
>
>>However, the people I know are finding that the truth is rather
>>more bleak, they currently can't generate enough power to break
>>even when the house is empty and all that's running is the
>>fridge/freezer and a few appliances on standby, they still need
>>to draw from the grid. It's all down to the efficiency in which
>>you can convert one form of energy, wind or sunlight, into
>>another form, electricity.

>
>
> But why aim at breaking even? The first chunk of energy savings
> can be achieved at relatively moderate cost - insulation, insulation,
> heating with gas rather than electricity, and insulation. The next
> chunk is more expensive - diminishing returns etc. You seem to be
> saying that it's not worthwhile if you don't produce enough energy to
> satisfy your own demand entirely, but why?


I agree about insulation etc. but we were talking about
generating power rather than saving energy. No amount of
insulation is going to light a room at night or power your
appliances. For that you need power.

If there was a system that was *really* worthwhile they'd be as
prolific as satellite dishes.

--
Regards

Nick
 
Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:35:08 GMT:
> If you want to generate power you need a reliable energy source
> of sufficient power to make it work, the laws of physics apply
> and things that contain enough potential energy to make using
> them worthwhile tend be dangerous, explosively so!


Like e.g. coal you mean? Dangerous stuff!

You're really making a case for micro-generation there. If you only
need a little energy, you can save a lot of wastage by not having to
transport it and by using primary sources rather than electricity for
heating.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
 
Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:35:08 GMT:
> If you want to generate power you need a reliable energy source
> of sufficient power to make it work, the laws of physics apply
> and things that contain enough potential energy to make using
> them worthwhile tend be dangerous, explosively so!


Like e.g. coal you mean? Dangerous stuff!

You're really making a case for micro-generation there. If you only
need a little energy, you can save a lot of wastage by not having to
transport it and by using primary sources rather than electricity for
heating.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
 
Nick Mason wrote:

> Fusion, which powers the sun, produces no high level radiation
> waste like fission does but the fusion reactor does become
> irradiated and the plasma needed for the fusion process has to be
> heated to the point which is to hot for any material to remain
> solid, the answer is to hold the plasma in empty space by
> powerful electromagnetic forces, keeping the plasma contained
> without it touching the sides of the vessel. If you manage to
> overcome all the engineering and superconductor problems
> associated with starting, containing and maintaining a fusion
> reaction you then have the added problem of converting the
> kinetic energy of the released neutrons into useful form of
> energy, electricity.
>
> Not the sort of thing you can build in a shed.


There is one sort which you can build in a shed, but unfortunately to get
any energy out you have to put even more energy in.

http://fusor.net/
--
Dave
 
Nick Mason wrote:

> Fusion, which powers the sun, produces no high level radiation
> waste like fission does but the fusion reactor does become
> irradiated and the plasma needed for the fusion process has to be
> heated to the point which is to hot for any material to remain
> solid, the answer is to hold the plasma in empty space by
> powerful electromagnetic forces, keeping the plasma contained
> without it touching the sides of the vessel. If you manage to
> overcome all the engineering and superconductor problems
> associated with starting, containing and maintaining a fusion
> reaction you then have the added problem of converting the
> kinetic energy of the released neutrons into useful form of
> energy, electricity.
>
> Not the sort of thing you can build in a shed.


There is one sort which you can build in a shed, but unfortunately to get
any energy out you have to put even more energy in.

http://fusor.net/
--
Dave