Your views on wind farms?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Aled Evans, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Mark Thompson wrote:

    > Assuming they create heat which is then used to make electricity in the
    > same way as normal power stations then they wouldn't be any worse in that
    > respect than normal power generation, with the added advantage that they
    > won't be chucking out CO2


    Or any great quantity of festive glow-in-the-dark waste that takes
    forever and a day until it's safe. It should be a much cleaner way of
    using nuclear energy.

    > Anyway, won't much of the heat be converted to some other form of energy?


    No more than is the case with existing nuclear or conventional thermal
    power plants. The heat is used to create steam to drive turbines which
    isn't very efficient.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     


  2. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from
    the wonderful person Mark Thompson <[email protected]>
    said
    >> But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has
    >> provided us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat
    >> pollution.

    >
    >Assuming they create heat which is then used to make electricity in the
    >same way as normal power stations then they wouldn't be any worse in that
    >respect than normal power generation, with the added advantage that they
    >won't be chucking out CO2
    >
    >Anyway, won't much of the heat be converted to some other form of energy?


    It all comes back as heat when the music stops (unless you beam it into
    space or something). Heats kind of the lowest common denominator when
    you talk about using energy.

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
  3. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the wonderful person
    Bob Watkinson <[email protected]> said
    >
    >> Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    >> by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    >> which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    >> Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.
    >>

    >
    >Wasn't that what I said? How am I incorrect?


    You said 'It's got nothing to do with global warming' - actually it has,
    but it's a very minor effect.

    You also said ' Energy can neither be created nor
    destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything
    on top of anything.'

    Energy =can= be created (from matter) .. E=MC**2 and all that good
    stuff. You are adding energy (heat) on top of what is there. A couple of
    heavy hydrogen atoms are not a global warming issue. Fuse them into
    Helium (and a bunch of energy) and you do have some heat that wasn't
    around before, which the earth has to get rid of. (by radiation,
    although that's pretty much a taboo word among people who never did
    physics).

    As someone said elsewhere though, you'd have the same problem wherever
    you got the energy from (although if it was solar/wind/wave power you'd
    not be adding anything, just changing it's form) .. nuclear at least
    doesn't produce greenhouse gases during the production phase (but
    building the station and mining the Uranium, or separating out the heavy
    hydrogen, likely does)

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
  4. Roger

    Roger Guest

    The message <[email protected]>
    from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email protected]> contains these words:

    > Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    > by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    > which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    > Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.


    Funny, I thought cloud formation provided negative feedback helping to
    keep the planet stable.

    --
    Roger Chapman
     
  5. "GSV Three Minds in a Can" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the wonderful person
    > Bob Watkinson <[email protected]> said
    >>
    >>> Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    >>> by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    >>> which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    >>> Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Wasn't that what I said? How am I incorrect?

    >
    > You said 'It's got nothing to do with global warming' - actually it has,
    > but it's a very minor effect.
    >
    > You also said ' Energy can neither be created nor
    > destroyed. With fusion you release latent energy you do not add anything
    > on top of anything.'
    >
    > Energy =can= be created (from matter) .. E=MC**2 and all that good stuff.


    Hmmm. Not too sure where you're, coming from there. E=MC**2 ? The only
    thing I can think of is that Einstien explains that from a small amount of
    mass (matter if you prefer) a large amount of energy can be produced. I
    don't think he said you could create either mass or energy, just convert it
    from one form to another
    ..
     
  6. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the
    wonderful person Roger <[email protected]> said
    >The message <[email protected]>
    >from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >
    >> Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    >> by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    >> which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    >> Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

    >
    >Funny, I thought cloud formation provided negative feedback helping to
    >keep the planet stable.


    Depends what the cloud is made of (see Venus, for pathological case).
    For simple water clouds, then they do keep some heat from reaching the
    ground during the day, but they also keep it from escaping from the
    ground by radiation. Not a simple sum 8>. If you want to cool the place
    down, snow / white paint on the ground would work better than clouds.

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
  7. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote
    >Gordon Burns wrote:
    >> Additional cost would be minimal at construction stage, and spare
    >>energy could be cycled back to the National Grid.

    >What spare energy would that be?
    >
    >Currently they can barely generate enough power to keep your household
    >appliances on standby let alone any spare.
    >
    >This seems to be one of the subjects where people seem to forget the
    >basic laws of physics.


    I heard on Radio 4 today that Spain now have 25% of capacity from wind
    farms.

    It is still more expensive that coal fired plant, apparently, but is big
    business over there.
    --
    Gordon Harris
     
  8. Adam Lea

    Adam Lea Guest

    "Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > But fusion will still produce energy on top of that which sun has provided
    > us with, so it will still cause warming of the earth, heat pollution.
    >


    The heat released by one power station is so tiny relative to all the
    natural sources and sinks that I would be surprised if this is really an
    issue. For example the Atlantic Ocean alone contains heat equivalent to the
    output from one billion power stations, and the energy in a category 5
    hurricane could supply the power needs of the US for the next 100 years.
     
  9. David

    David Guest

    I think wind farms have a kind of beauty defined by their ability to
    generate electricity in a sustainable way.
    Going even more off topic, the government is funding research into one way
    of making the National Gid work more efficiently - so maybe less need for
    wind turbines.
    This is by putting intelligent controls into appliances such as domestic
    fridges so that their stopping and starting is modified to as to smooth out
    the fluctuations in the national power supply.
    Have a look at this link - I think it's really interesting (I am an engineer
    though!)
    http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

    David

    "Aled Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Hi,
    >
    > From a walker or rambling perspective, I would be interested in finding

    out
    > the group's views on the growing presence of windfarms in the countryside.
    > What effect do they have on the scenery, the levels of noise and are there
    > any health danger issues?
    > Or is it the way to go in terms of future energy needs?
    >
    > Aled Evans
    > www.letsescape.co.uk
    > www.healthmagnet.ik.com
    >
    >
     
  10. Andy Champ

    Andy Champ Guest

    Gordon wrote:

    >
    > I heard on Radio 4 today that Spain now have 25% of capacity from wind
    > farms.
    >
    > It is still more expensive that coal fired plant, apparently, but is big
    > business over there.


    ISTR they said 25% *at peak*. On a bad day, it's SFA.

    Of course, some of the true cost of coal fired plant - CO2 emissions -
    isn't measured.

    Andy
     
  11. Graham Seed

    Graham Seed Guest

    "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote
    >>Gordon Burns wrote:
    >>> Additional cost would be minimal at construction stage, and spare
    >>> energy could be cycled back to the National Grid.

    >>What spare energy would that be?
    >>
    >>Currently they can barely generate enough power to keep your household
    >>appliances on standby let alone any spare.
    >>
    >>This seems to be one of the subjects where people seem to forget the basic
    >>laws of physics.

    >
    > I heard on Radio 4 today that Spain now have 25% of capacity from wind
    > farms.
    >
    > It is still more expensive that coal fired plant, apparently, but is big
    > business over there.


    I wonder how much we don't want Wind Farms to be a possible answer! If we
    had joined-up-energy as much as we'd like joined-up-Government perhaps a lot
    of the barriers would disappear. I surveyed a large wind turbine site the
    other day - it was fairly silent on a windy day. While I understand the need
    to maintain a balance between conservation and pragmatism surely wind could
    contribute a substantial amount given a bit of enthusiasm.

    I suppose coal energy will be cheap provided we can keep children digging it
    for 2p a day in Zrglindvisicovia :) or :-(

    Graham
     
  12. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    Graham Seed <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >I wonder how much we don't want Wind Farms to be a possible answer! If we
    >had joined-up-energy as much as we'd like joined-up-Government perhaps a lot
    >of the barriers would disappear. I surveyed a large wind turbine site the
    >other day - it was fairly silent on a windy day. While I understand the need
    >to maintain a balance between conservation and pragmatism surely wind could
    >contribute a substantial amount given a bit of enthusiasm.
    >
    >I suppose coal energy will be cheap provided we can keep children digging it
    >for 2p a day in Zrglindvisicovia :) or :-(
    >

    I wonder how clean the 'clean burn' coal-fired stations are?
    We could always send the illegal immigrants down the mines.
    Can't be more dangerous than cockle-picking on Morecambe sands.
    8-(
    --
    Gordon Harris
     
  13. Stuart

    Stuart Guest

    "Graham Seed" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > While I understand the need to maintain a balance between conservation and
    > pragmatism surely wind could contribute a substantial amount given a bit
    > of enthusiasm.


    Absolutely, but lets have them Off Shore where the wind is more reliable and
    they don't destroy the beauty of our countryside.
     
  14. Mike Painter

    Mike Painter Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > Nick Mason <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Gordon Burns wrote:
    >>> Additional cost would be minimal at construction stage, and spare
    >>> energy could be cycled back to the National Grid.

    >> What spare energy would that be?
    >>
    >> Currently they can barely generate enough power to keep your
    >> household appliances on standby let alone any spare.
    >>
    >> This seems to be one of the subjects where people seem to forget the
    >> basic laws of physics.

    >
    > I heard on Radio 4 today that Spain now have 25% of capacity from wind
    > farms.
    >
    > It is still more expensive that coal fired plant, apparently, but is
    > big business over there.


    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-01-04-wind-farm_x.htm
    deals with big turbines (300 feet) that "produce energy even if the wind is
    blowing less than 8 mph and generate 20 times more energy than earlier
    machines"
     
  15. Roger

    Roger Guest

    The message <[email protected]>
    from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email protected]> contains these words:

    > >> Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    > >> by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    > >> which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    > >> Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

    > >
    > >Funny, I thought cloud formation provided negative feedback helping to
    > >keep the planet stable.


    > Depends what the cloud is made of (see Venus, for pathological case).
    > For simple water clouds, then they do keep some heat from reaching the
    > ground during the day, but they also keep it from escaping from the
    > ground by radiation. Not a simple sum 8>. If you want to cool the place
    > down, snow / white paint on the ground would work better than clouds.


    For clouds to keep heat in they first have to let it through.

    AIUI the feedback mechanism works thus:

    Planet warms up > more clouds > more incident radiation reflected back
    into space at a high level > planet cools > less clouds > more radiation
    reaches ground level > planet warms up ...

    Of course this is only stable between limits. If complete cloud cover is
    insufficient to create cooling then the planet will continue to heat up
    and likewise (unlikely as it seems at present) if there is insufficient
    radiation to maintain temperature when there is no cloud cover the
    planet will continue to cool.

    As for snow or white paint at ground level some at least of the
    radiation returning to space will be at wavelengths that the greenhouse
    gases collect and while every little helps to keep the planet cooler
    than it would otherwise be unlike clouds there is no control mechanism.

    --
    Roger Chapman
     
  16. In message <[email protected]>, Roger
    <[email protected]> writes
    >The message <[email protected]>
    >from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >
    >> Adding more energy (from fusion/fission) might jack the temperature up
    >> by some insignificant amount. The real impact however comes from things
    >> which stop the Sun's energy (99%+ of the total!) from getting away.
    >> Clouds. CO2/CH4/SO2 in the air. Etc. Etc.

    >
    >Funny, I thought cloud formation provided negative feedback helping to
    >keep the planet stable.
    >


    Clouds have two effects - they increase the albedo preventing solar
    energy from reaching the surface, and they absorb outgoing infrared,
    warming the surface. The sign of the total effect depends on what sort
    of cloud you have - cirrus (and aeroplane contrails) reduce the surface
    temperature, stratus and strato-cumulus increase it (at least at night).
    --
    Stewart Robert Hinsley
     
  17. Adam Lea wrote:

    > the
    > energy in a category 5 hurricane could supply the power needs of the
    > US for the next 100 years.


    That's the solution then! Cover Forida with windfarms!

    Paul
     
  18. David wrote:

    > I think wind farms have a kind of beauty defined by their ability to
    > generate electricity in a sustainable way.


    Anyone ever played Sim City? Wind Turbines are great at the beginning of
    the game when all you need to power is a small village and a few farms. As
    your city begins to grow though you have to build so many of the damn things
    that you soon get sick of them and plonk down a few oil powered power
    stations instead. Far more practical, you don't need many and they don't
    take up much space. Just put them out of the way somewhere where no-one
    really cares. Port Talbot is ideal for example, or maybe Rhyl (in-joke for
    those familiar with Barry Welsh).

    Paul
     
  19. Graham Seed wrote:

    > I suppose coal energy will be cheap provided we can keep children
    > digging it for 2p a day in Zrglindvisicovia :) or :-(


    I've got a better idea - build a load of nuclear power plants on the moon,
    then beam the energy back through space to be picked up by huge collector
    dishes.

    Taking this idea a step further, building a quanti-bazilli-trillion
    wind-farms on Jupiter would provide enough energy to power the entire solar
    system for the next 5 billion years, after which it would become a
    mysterious planetary artefact for future alien species to discover and
    ponder.

    Paul
     
  20. Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the wonderful
    person Paul Saunders <[email protected]> said
    >Graham Seed wrote:
    >
    >> I suppose coal energy will be cheap provided we can keep children
    >> digging it for 2p a day in Zrglindvisicovia :) or :-(

    >
    >I've got a better idea - build a load of nuclear power plants on the moon,
    >then beam the energy back through space to be picked up by huge collector
    >dishes.


    I doubt you can steer a Terawatt energy beam down through the atmosphere
    with enough accuracy, and I personally wouldn't want to be on the same
    planet as the target dish(es)!!

    --
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
     
Loading...
Loading...