wind power the future ? yes no?

samsclub

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/special-report-a-look-at-the-wind-energy-debate-264502.html
interesting article . and also the new ones now seem to be lower less harm to birds and also propele at 6 km per hour of low wind . to boot it off .
some of these for example.
http://windpowerauthority.com/top-5-low-speed-wind-turbines/

Capt'n Midnight

samsclub wrote: »

http://windpowerauthority.com/top-5-low-speed-wind-turbines/

Mostly snake oil.

Considering the cost of existing three bladed wind turbines a gain of even a few % in efficiency or reduced costs would mean savings of millions for a large wind farm.

wazky

We could set up a CE scheme in which people on the dole could turn the blades on the turbines by hand, no need for wind at all then.

AnonoBoy

We could just flatten Longford and make it the wind farm county.

Problem solved.

Sure people in Longford would complain but sure who f*cking cares about people from Longford?

Sauve

A German man once told me that wind turbines take more energy to make than they'll ever generate. Or something.
I was trying to score him at the time so tbh I'm not entirely sure what he said.

Sunnyisland

Sauve wrote: »

A German man once told me that wind turbines take more energy to make than they'll ever generate. Or something.
I was trying to score him at the time so tbh I'm not entirely sure what he said.

And the important qustion , did you score ? Or was it all just hot air...

Menas

More wind power.
More wave power.
Less oil and coal and other carbon emitting power sources.

Vote for me.

Temptamperu

considering its windy almost every day of the year i think its a great idea... but the typical irish not in my back garden shíte seeps in and we stay in the past with fossil fuels.

Sauve

realies wrote: »

And the important qustion , did you score ? Or was it all just hot air...

No
I shoulda copped it when the conversation turned to renewable energy tbh :P

Panthro

realies wrote: »

And the important qustion , did you score ? Or was it all just hot air...

I'd say they ended up going round in circles

Sauve

Temptamperu wrote: »

considering its windy almost every day of the year i think its a great idea... but the typical irish not in my back garden shíte seeps in and we stay in the past with fossil fuels.

I'd love a turbine in my back yard. Despite the noise they generate, I think they're really hypnotic. I could look at them spin all day.

Temptamperu

Theres a house on the way to the square with one and its quite quiet, its a little bit of a hum but its not loud.

Sauve

Temptamperu wrote: »

Theres a house on the way to the square with one and its quite quiet, its a little bit of a hum but its not loud.

What square? Where?!

Domestic turbines are tinchy compared to the industrial ones I meant, they're fair loud so they are.

ArtyM

Sauve wrote: »

No
I shoulda copped it when the conversation turned to renewable energy tbh :P

Yeah, not likely to ever appear on Cosmo's list of '10 ways to tell that a date is going well'

Iwasfrozen

Nah nuclear power is the future folks, when we run out of oil we can't afford to be as picky. Presuming we haven't discovered nuclear fusion yet (presuming that's possible small scale)

hfallada

Coal powered plants are the future. Although they are highly polluting. Coal is just so cheap. America is a massive coal producer and due to its declining industry and increased use of gas. America is selling coal for next to nothing compared to expensive gas. Gas is also becoming more difficult to source with the issues with Russia

Bubbaclaus

Nuclear is the future. It would be the present if it wasn't for all the scaremongering

Wabbit Ears

Another vote for nuclear. Except for the whole radioactive disater thing its the most efficient and renewable source of energy available.

Dublinstiofán

I think wave power will be the future.

Capt'n Midnight

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Another vote for nuclear. Except for the whole radioactive disater thing its the most efficient and renewable source of energy available.

So why is the UK paying double the wholesale rate for it ?

Capt'n Midnight

wazky wrote: »

We could set up a CE scheme in which people on the dole could turn the blades on the turbines by hand, no need for wind at all then.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110713.gif

Temptamperu

Sauve wrote: »

What square? Where?!

Domestic turbines are tinchy compared to the industrial ones I meant, they're fair loud so they are.

Tallaght Square sorry.

Stavros Murphy

hfallada wrote: »

Coal powered plants are the future. Although they are highly polluting. Coal is just so cheap. America is a massive coal producer and due to its declining industry and increased use of gas. America is selling coal for next to nothing compared to expensive gas. Gas is also becoming more difficult to source with the issues with Russia

Yeah, I kinda go along with this. There's better ways of burning coal now, it is treated as a "liquid" fuel and burnt by high pressure injection rather than heaped up in burning piles - think ground to a fine dust and shot out of a nozzle like oil is. That gives a very complete burn and massive energy release. Wind power is nice, it's fluffy, it's kinda like EVs, but when the chips are down, it's just a supplementary source, it just isn't demand-led, it is supply-regardless.

It's like lighting a candle - nice, helpful, makes the room look well, but if you lose your contact lense, you'll flick the switch to your 100w halogens and stop fcuking around.

maxwell smart

hfallada wrote: »

Coal powered plants are the future. Although they are highly polluting. Coal is just so cheap. America is a massive coal producer and due to its declining industry and increased use of gas. America is selling coal for next to nothing compared to expensive gas. Gas is also becoming more difficult to source with the issues with Russia

Ignore that coal is highly polluting, won't we eventually run out of it?

And could it be really cheap because there is less and less demand for it, therefore, if we switched to using more coal, wouldn't the price then go up?

Renewables, while expensive, will by their very nature never run out or be 'used up' (although they won't be providing power 24/7) so at some stage we will have to face up to facts, we will need nuclear power to provide an 'always on' back up.

At some stage, somehow, we will have to ignore the monetary costs of renewables and also that some people are going to be 'put out' by the placement of them. Trying to accommodate the local protest group is what has held this country back since its foundation.

Stavros Murphy

maxwell smart wrote: »

Ignore that coal is highly polluting, won't we eventually run out of it?

And could it be really cheap because there is less and less demand for it, therefore, if we switched to using more coal, wouldn't the price then go up?

Renewables, while expensive, will by their very nature never run out or be 'used up' (although they won't be providing power 24/7) so at some stage we will have to face up to facts, we will need nuclear power to provide an 'always on' back up.

At some stage, somehow, we will have to ignore the monetary costs of renewables and also that some people are going to be 'put out' by the placement of them. Trying to accommodate the local protest group is what has held this country back since its foundation.

Err yeah, we do that now. Windmills die in debt, they're like hens.

maxwell smart

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Err yeah, we do that now. Windmills die in debt, they're like hens.

Your missing the point I am making. We need to ignore that they are built and operated at a loss because some day we won't have any alternative

Stavros Murphy

maxwell smart wrote: »

Your missing the point I am making. We need to ignore that they are built and operated at a loss because some day we won't have any alternative

No, some day they will make solid financial sense, when battery technology catches up. That hasn't occurred yet, but it will, stuff changes. Then, build ahead and blow trumpets. For now, hold the eulogies. It's future technology being used to provide current solutions(excuse the pun) and falling short. Time will fix that. I'm not anti at all, I'm just a bit of a cynic. Some of the big investors in the field also have a habit of hitting the jackpot on fads and then moving on, killing made. That gives me cause for concern.

YFlyer

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

No, some day they will make solid financial sense, when battery technology catches up. That hasn't occurred yet, but it will, stuff changes. Then, build ahead and blow trumpets. For now, hold the eulogies. It's future technology being used to provide current solutions(excuse the pun) and falling short. Time will fix that. I'm not anti at all, I'm just a bit of a cynic. Some of the big investors in the field also have a habit of hitting the jackpot on fads and then moving on, killing made. That gives me cause for concern.

Agree like hens

Stavros Murphy

YFlyer wrote: »

Agree like hens

Good analogy. Windymills are currently free-range and lay their eggs at times people might not want them laid, and none when they do. If they could store and release the output as required, QED. Till then, they're like hens. Free range ones.

Chucken

I want a free range windymill

mr_edge_to_you

We can just use batteries!

Sh1tbag OToole

Next year the Mr. Fusion is coming out so you can power your house for a year off a Tayto wrapper and all the Green Party feckers will be on the dole as will all the lads drawing the subsidies for the overpriced renewable energy.

They will probably continue to bang on about "one off" housing though because they're all a shower of culchies who moved to Dublin and suddenly got notions about how the crowd back home should live their lives

Capt'n Midnight

maxwell smart wrote: »

Ignore that coal is highly polluting, won't we eventually run out of it?

Not for a few hundred years

Capt'n Midnight

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

No, some day they will make solid financial sense, when battery technology catches up. That hasn't occurred yet, but it will, stuff changes.

That would be a game changer. But so far the problem is that battery have finite lives due to irreversible chemical changes, for many technologies this means that energy return on energy invested isn't that impressive. It's no surprise that almost all electricity storage is still hydro. ( >99% IIRC) and of the rest Compressed Air Energy Storage ( two sites ) exceeds all the Lead / Sulphur Sodium / Lithium batteries / flywheel storage / flow batteries / fuel cells / railcars loaded with gravel combined.


Super ultra mega capacitors would be way better if they could make them work.

Sh1tbag OToole

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Super ultra mega capacitors would be way better if they could make them work.

If we could get one to store the 1.21JW stored in a lightning strike we'd be ok. Actually we will probably be applying for preemptive bailouts to the EU incase we don't get lightning some year

The Mr. Fusion would be better, but it would have to be an open source Mr. Fusion anyone could 3D-print or else the government will force the manufacturer to make them accept only specially licensed tayto wrappers that cost a grand each just in case we get carried away and start using them to zap clouds with home-made lightning to prevent them from raining.

Stavros Murphy

Bosch and Varta are currently spending mega-bucks on this. The results will be interesting. At work, we have some new "super-secret" Li-Ion traction batteries coming in soon that are supposed to also be game changers - this will filter into the mainstream eventually.

Capt'n Midnight

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

If we could get one to store the 1.21JW stored in a lightning strike we'd be ok. Actually we will probably be applying for preemptive bailouts to the EU incase we don't get lightning some year

1.21GW ?

but it only lasts for 30 microseconds so that's about 36.3 KJ or 10Wh :pac:

actually it's probably more like a billion joules so more like 300 units of electricity

Stained Class

Ah, some people think electric cars are non polluting & these are the same people that think wind power is the big answer.

Think about it. Electric cars emit no emissions, but the power stations that supply the power to their batteries do.

This fact is lost on them.

When you think about it, most people are not the brightest & they are prone to jumping on the latest trend or bandwagon.

Eco-stuff is the latest thing & the plebs want to buy into it.

Marketing is a wonderful thing.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Stained Class wrote: »

Ah, some people think electric cars are non polluting & these are the same people that think wind power is the big answer.

Think about it. Electric cars emit no emissions, but the power stations that supply the power to their batteries do.

This fact is lost on them.

When you think about it, most people are not the brightest & they are prone to jumping on the latest trend or bandwagon.

Eco-stuff is the latest thing & the plebs want to buy into it.

Marketing is a wonderful thing.:rolleyes:

But is the emissions from a standard car greater to or less than the emissions a coal powered plant would produce to power the electric car?

shruikan2553

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That would be a game changer. But so far the problem is that battery have finite lives due to irreversible chemical changes, for many technologies this means that energy return on energy invested isn't that impressive. It's no surprise that almost all electricity storage is still hydro. ( >99% IIRC) and of the rest Compressed Air Energy Storage ( two sites ) exceeds all the Lead / Sulphur Sodium / Lithium batteries / flywheel storage / flow batteries / fuel cells / railcars loaded with gravel combined.


Super ultra mega capacitors would be way better if they could make them work.

We also have solid state batteries that are perfect for energy harvesting. Their capacity is just way to small at the minute.

Sir Arthur Daley

All depends where you live maybe, i did the electrical work recently on a micro water generator, he is totally independent of the grid now.

Dempsey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Mostly snake oil.

Considering the cost of existing three bladed wind turbines a gain of even a few % in efficiency or reduced costs would mean savings of millions for a large wind farm.

Easy say something isnt the answer. Whats the alternative??

323

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Another vote for nuclear. Except for the whole radioactive disater thing its the most efficient and renewable source of energy available.

Not arguing against nuclear but, a renewable source?????

Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource.

At present use rates, considering known recoverable resources and predicted undiscovered resources (which may or may not exist) - good for about 180 years.
Replace the worlds fossil generation with nuclear, we are good for about 30 years.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Green propaganda. They're not efficient, the planet Earth moves in Climate cycles, Human beings have no meaningful impact. Every year Oil companies discover new sites. The Green Racket has been going since the late 80s, many people have made a sh1t load of money from it. It's Racketeering, fear is the selling point, deceive the 'mark' and take advantage of them.

Dr Michael Savage for instance interviewing Dr Richard Lindzen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThVoO39cFT8

Chinasea

maxwell smart wrote: »

Ignore that coal is highly polluting, won't we eventually run out of

Renewables, while expensive, will by their very nature never run out or be 'used up' (although they won't be providing power 24/7) so at some stage we will have to face up to facts, we will need nuclear power to provide an 'always on' back up.

At some stage, somehow, we will have to ignore the monetary costs of renewables and also that some people are going to be 'put out' by the placement of them. Trying to accommodate the local protest group is what has held this country back since its foundation.

100% but sadly a tiny minority acknowledge this. Look at the recent march in Dublin city centre with their throngs of kids. They have polluted the minds of their children too.

Capt'n Midnight

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But is the emissions from a standard car greater to or less than the emissions a coal powered plant would produce to power the electric car?

the well to wheel efficiency of electric car is lower than just using diesel (petrol is less efficient and there are more losses in the refining)

BUT we aren't talking about fossil fuel, this is a wind thread :rolleyes:

Stavros Murphy

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

All depends where you live maybe, i did the electrical work recently on a micro water generator, he is totally independent of the grid now.

These make far more sense as they are reliable. But again, fine for individual households, try upping output to run a city, and it gets dodgy. Unless you bang in a dam and then, well you're back to hydro, which we use already and have done for decades.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

All depends where you live maybe, i did the electrical work recently on a micro water generator, he is totally independent of the grid now.

Very few of us have access to a stream

shruikan2553 wrote: »

We also have solid state batteries that are perfect for energy harvesting. Their capacity is just way to small at the minute.

Ages away from being cheaper than just over providing extra renewable power sources,

Dempsey wrote: »

Easy say something isnt the answer. Whats the alternative??

The horizontal axis three blade turbines that provide over 99.9% of wind energy at present.

Or perhaps two blade turbines for offshore use because vibration and noise aren't as big a problem after you've engineered the thing to stand up to the pounding of the waves.

adding extra material to a turbine to channel wind into it, or adding extra blades to increase the torque means you get more power , but it costs more so overall it's less efficient . Since wind energy is free the cost of harvesting energy is more important than efficiency.

yellowlabrador

one power source often overlooked is Thorium. we could mine it from spoil heaps left over from mining and from the ash produced from burning coal. It wouldn't work small scale but it would work in a large power plant. There's a lot of thorium about and one of the main reasons it isn't explored is the fact that it can't be used in nuclear weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Pumpkinseeds

I'm against it. They look ugly and blight the landscape. I wouldn't want to live near them and I doubt most people would want to live near them either.

Capt'n Midnight

323 wrote: »

Not arguing against nuclear but, a renewable source?????

Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource.

At present use rates, considering known recoverable resources and predicted undiscovered resources (which may or may not exist) - good for about 180 years.
Replace the worlds fossil generation with nuclear, we are good for about 30 years.

Actually it's worse than that. Uranium is easy to detect, you detect it from an aeroplane. At this stage the best hope for uranium is phosphate by-product, but phosphates are getting expensive too. The alternatives are extracting it from granite. And that is so energy intensive that when you get to low grade ores the fossil fuel inputs are insane.


Thorium keeps getting mentioned. It's been done before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station

Thorium means using a breeder reactor. 70 years of breeding plutonium and we still don't have commercial breeders. The other problem is the time it takes to start the breeding cycle.