Wind power.

Glaucus said:
Rofl.
Ypunarent stating an opinion.
And the cost of securing nuclear waste for thousands of years.

You are utterly and totally wrong on wind if you think a few days off an oil burning ship, out ways clean energy for years. Or you think It's just as polluting as a coal power station which burns hydrocarbons 24/7 there is no hope.
Click to expand...

Don't bother decoding the first line.
We won't need to store nuclear waste in a thousand years, we'll have figured out how to eliminate harmful by products or send them into space...

holymonk said:
Where do you put the nuclear waste?
Click to expand...
More research like Thor energy is needed!
Mynight said:
Scotland.
Click to expand...
Oi! Although if we get fiscal independence we might just need another source of income!
 
Will we, and what do we do with it until we've figured it out in thousands of years?
That's still 100s or thousands of years of costs.

And about $3k to put a kilo in space depending on orbit. Far far more if you don't want it in an eath orbit. Let alone the outcry if it would to explode in take off.
 
Last edited:
Who says we'll still have the fossil fuels needed to manufacture the plastic parts needed for turbines in a thousand years. This is all speculation.
They'll be no outcry if there's an explosion on take off. Not for a very very long time...
 
Glaucus said:
Your still talking nonsense, the environmental impact is massively less than any oil or coal power plant.

You also realise that once they are up, the energy they produce can then be used to create new ones.
It's how it's always worked, the previous energy supply, builds the new one.



So yeah pull another one, it is absolute nonsense,
Net energy payback on wind is around 20-25x

What was this conference you went to, dreamland?


http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152560/


And before you say more silly stiff, here's a comparison.

11az9g0.jpg



People think coal, oil etc is efficient, it isn't it's hard and expensive to get out the ground, it then has to be transported, energy recovery at the power station is relatively low. Etc. On top of all that at every stage it's horrendously polluting.
Click to expand...

Oil and gas isn't actually on that list. Probably because it's so variable, or its to make a point about wind...
 
Meh well just build the launchpad up north :D.

I'm not overly clued up on nuclear energy but isn't there a relativly new type that doesn't generate waste (or at least not as much).
 
Duke_ said:
Who says we'll still have the fossil fuels needed to manufacture the plastic parts needed for turbines in a thousand years. This is all speculation.
They'll be no outcry if there's an explosion on take off. Not for a very very long time...
Click to expand...

We don't need fossil fuels to create plastics.
And on the same silly line, how you going to build your power stations with no fossil fuels.

And yes there would be an outcry. There already is. Nuclear powered launches has to get presidential authorisation, and groups still protests and they are small RTGs.
 
Wind farms is such an apt name because its all about farming subsidies and little to do with energy security.

I'd redirect a couple of years foreign aid into a crash fast breeder or thorium reactor programme and stop wasting cash on renewables unti someone solves the energy strage issue in an economic way.
 
I think Wind Turbines look really nice on the landscape. A combination of Nuclear and wind would do me nicely although I don't think anyone on the forum has any idea of the complete energy picture and the pros and cons of each power solution.

When I worked for "the council" in the planning department we had lots of solar farm applications, I think because of central government financial incentives. Mind you I am right down south...
 
Duke_ said:
Don't bother decoding the first line.
We won't need to store nuclear waste in a thousand years, we'll have figured out how to eliminate harmful by products or send them into space...
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a bacteria that feeds on nuclear waste discovered sometime in the last year

I think Wind Turbines look really nice on the landscape
Click to expand...
some people probably think the same about pylons and power lines
 
Well although not an electrical engineer I understand what lead and lag in MVARs is, I understand the concepts of capacitive load, resistive and inductive load their impact on the grid the value of static and rotating compensators and inertia on the grid. I understand the characteristiccs of OCGT's, CCGT's conventional thermal and nuclear generation. And on that basis I reckon renewables are a fools errand until mass storage is solved as an industrially deployable technology.

In my defence I offer exhibit A the UK energy market.
 
Derek W said:
Mainly the 'Its an eyesore on the landscape' crew or they're louder than you think when you get up close to them.
Click to expand...

I'm with the Engineering group, they look great to me.

I'd assume some Architects feel the same way about Brutalism, it only looks ugly to some people.

As for noise, nope that's just wrong. I've stood at the base of one in Cumbria and was amazed at how quiet it was, just a low whoosh sound every few seconds.

I'd have one in my back garden if they'd give me free electricity in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom