nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Capt'n Midnight

yellowlabrador wrote: »

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

Thorium 232 gets bred to U233, in much the same way that Uranium 238 gets bred to Plutonium 239.

A 22 Kiloton U233 weapon was exploded nearly 60 years ago 15 April 1955 19:00:15.3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material

Actually since you don't need an explosive lens it's much easier to make a U233 bomb than a plutonium one , the only trick is keep time in the breeder low so you don't get too much U234

When you consider the costs of isotope separation (at one stage up to 7% of electrical power in the USA was used for this) , you'd think thorium would be a no-brainer.

Red Pepper

Sauve wrote: »

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.

I actually love seeing windfarms or individual wind turbines. I think they look great and make me feel relaxed. The fact that they are generating green electricity is just mighty too.

Sh1tbag OToole

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

I wonder could you maximum power point track a lightning strike to draw more power from it

Capt'n Midnight

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I wonder could you maximum power point track a lightning strike to draw more power from it

No need, just store it in jars.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

Beats eight times the price of wholesale power like they're paying for unstable renewable power in Germany.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No need, just store it in jars.

Store what? Lightning power? Run that past me (and everyhone else here) again?

323

SeanW wrote: »

Beats eight times the price of wholesale power like they're paying for unstable renewable power in Germany.

Sorry, confused on this one????

Has Germanys wholesale electricity price not been predicted to drop again for the forth consecutive year (as of January was 32% since 2010), partially attributed to the expansion of coal generation but also to record wind and solar production. They must be doing something right.

As for unstable renewable power. OK, admit to being mildly surprised at this, so soon after shutting down nuclear.
German grid reached record reliability in 2011, Thanks to Renewables.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Store what? Lightning power? Run that past me (and everyhone else here) again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_experiment

MayoSalmon

50% PSO increase because of wind energy or renewables...yeah!!!!!!!

http://energyelephant.com/pso-levy-up-to-81-increase-on-electricity-bills-proposed-by-irish-commission-for-energy-regulation/

Capt'n Midnight

MayoSalmon wrote: »

50% PSO increase because of wind energy or renewables...yeah!!!!!!!

Actually most of that levy goes to Peat and Gas plants. :mad:
http://www.cer.ie/docs/000791/cer13130.pdf - Figures are 2013/14 PSO Forecast (Indicative)

Peat Stations: Lough Ree (100MW), Edenderry (120MW) and West Offaly (150MW) €69.2m

Gas (CAP05) Aughinish Alumina (160MW) and Tynagh (400MW) . €50.6m

REFIT & AER renewables include wind energy, small-scale hydropower,
combined heat and power (CHP) biomass (landfill gas), biomass-CHP;
biomass-anaerobic digestion and offshore wind. €40.8m

ALL the renewables combined only get 25% of the PSO levy

Which is about the same % of our energy they supply.

If you want to reduce the PSO levy by 75% then stop subsidising the smaller less efficient fossil fuel plants.

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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)

We've already "discovered" fusion, we know it works, we know how to do it, there are fusion reactors being built already. It's just new tech and needs a lot of research before it's commercially viable.