Renewal energy...... im not a rocket scientist, but.....
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Grey_Fox
The average American consumes 11kw, 6 billion people on the planet, this is about 66 terrawatts of power required globally.
If we give everyone half that, or about 5kws per person, then we have to produce about 33 terrawatts.
If we want to achieve independence from fossil fuel by 2037 (25 years) we need to produce about 30 terrawatts in a number of ways;
Conventional Nuclear - 5 terrawatts - 2 1/2 full sized reactors need to be built every week for 25 years
Wind - 3 terrawatts - every 3 minutes install a full sized 3megawatt turbine for 25 years
Solar - 10 terrawatts - install 250 square metres of solar cell, every second, for 25 years.
Biofuel - 2 terrawatts - 4 olympic swimming pools of GM bacteria every second, for 25 years.
And that's only 20 terrawatts...
(as per the above link)
If we give everyone half that, or about 5kws per person, then we have to produce about 33 terrawatts.
If we want to achieve independence from fossil fuel by 2037 (25 years) we need to produce about 30 terrawatts in a number of ways;
Conventional Nuclear - 5 terrawatts - 2 1/2 full sized reactors need to be built every week for 25 years
Wind - 3 terrawatts - every 3 minutes install a full sized 3megawatt turbine for 25 years
Solar - 10 terrawatts - install 250 square metres of solar cell, every second, for 25 years.
Biofuel - 2 terrawatts - 4 olympic swimming pools of GM bacteria every second, for 25 years.
And that's only 20 terrawatts...
(as per the above link)
What's supposed to be scary about this, especially the first one? Power plants only have an operational life of 30-50 years anyway, higher end being nuclear, so on that time scale we pretty much have to replace the entire world's installed capacity anyway. The problem would only be trying to get it done in, say, 5 years.
For comparison, the world currently produces 165,000 cars per day, having a typical retail value of about $5bn. That's comparable to the cost of a nuclear plant with several reactors on site.
It's not supposed to be 'scary' - where did I say that?
It just demonstrates the scale of things, it's not impossible to do, but we're producing 165,000 cars a day, not nuclear power stations or wind farms etc at such a rate as to make a meaningful contribution.
The replacement of existing power stations just adds the scale of things, if you just want to go nuclear then build 15 reactors a week for the next 25 years, if you want to do only wind power (the point of the thread) then install 10 turbines every 3 mins for 25yrs. At the moment we're just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic by going down a wind-powered future; it's not the panacea that people generally think it is.
It just demonstrates the scale of things, it's not impossible to do, but we're producing 165,000 cars a day, not nuclear power stations or wind farms etc at such a rate as to make a meaningful contribution.
The replacement of existing power stations just adds the scale of things, if you just want to go nuclear then build 15 reactors a week for the next 25 years, if you want to do only wind power (the point of the thread) then install 10 turbines every 3 mins for 25yrs. At the moment we're just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic by going down a wind-powered future; it's not the panacea that people generally think it is.
Original post by Darth Stewie
It's due to something called the wake effect. After going through the blades the air is disrupted, if for instance you placed another turbine right behind it, it would not function properly or depending on the design / distance may not function at all because of the winds speed reduction.
Basically if you put down two turbines with the second being say only 4ft from the first the second would not generate any power hence making the construction of it pointless, the way they are placed maximizes each wind turbines power generation in a cost effective manner.
Basically if you put down two turbines with the second being say only 4ft from the first the second would not generate any power hence making the construction of it pointless, the way they are placed maximizes each wind turbines power generation in a cost effective manner.
What if they put the blades at different heights? One a full blade span higher than the other, then the next one would be standard height again and so on?
Original post by Tommyjw
Article
AN area the size of Wales would need to be covered in wind turbines to meet just a sixth of the nation's daily energy needs, according to a new study that has cast doubt over the Government's push for wind energy.
AN area the size of Wales would need to be covered in wind turbines to meet just a sixth of the nation's daily energy needs, according to a new study that has cast doubt over the Government's push for wind energy.
what they should be pushing for in that case is decreasing the daily energy needs...I'd say 'before it is too late'. However I believe it already is.
Original post by billydisco
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9399974/Proposals-submitted-for-giant-wind-farm-off-Isle-of-Man.html
Is there any particular reason why they dont cram together more wind turbines?
Surely that is just wind going to waste and not making the most of an area they are "affecting" by their presence- so surely they should maximise the energy gained???
Is there any particular reason why they dont cram together more wind turbines?
Surely that is just wind going to waste and not making the most of an area they are "affecting" by their presence- so surely they should maximise the energy gained???
wind turbines a re fairly useless, nuclear energy all the way!
Original post by Rascacielos
As well as the aesthetic problems with wind turbines, they also cost a fair bit to produce (relative to how much money they save when used, at least).
Where are you getting this information from?
Original post by Grey_Fox
It's not supposed to be 'scary' - where did I say that?
It just demonstrates the scale of things, it's not impossible to do, but we're producing 165,000 cars a day, not nuclear power stations or wind farms etc at such a rate as to make a meaningful contribution.
It just demonstrates the scale of things, it's not impossible to do, but we're producing 165,000 cars a day, not nuclear power stations or wind farms etc at such a rate as to make a meaningful contribution.
Because those things don't make a profit, because no government is seriously pushing CO2 reduction, not because those things are beyond our industrial capability. China alone is building 1-3 coal stations per week (depending who you believe) and that is a third world country. Nuclear plants are not significantly more expensive over their lifetime.
The replacement of existing power stations just adds the scale of things, if you just want to go nuclear then build 15 reactors a week for the next 25 years, if you want to do only wind power (the point of the thread) then install 10 turbines every 3 mins for 25yrs. At the moment we're just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic by going down a wind-powered future; it's not the panacea that people generally think it is.
I agree that token wind subsidies aren't going to do anything, but the intuition-bending "15 reactors a week!" comparisons are meaningless because the world's industrial capacity is also intuition-bending. Maybe the world's theoretical production capacity is to build 1,000 reactors a week?
The worlds energy crisis solution is fairly simple; couples only have one child until optimum population is reached.
Reducing the workforce reduces the production capacity at the same time as the demand, and this particular method is even worse because it results in a greater ratio of pensioners to workers (unlike, say, culling people by lottery).
(edited 11 years ago)
<- My point...........................................................................................................You ->
I was offering a scale of work to be done, and more specifically how negligible putting up a wind-farm a month is in comparison; whether this is achievable now or in the future isn't a question of industrial capacity, but of political will and financing, I never said it wasn't possible or scary, just very unlikely practically and much more involved than people would first think.
If you read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote, you'll see that I don't disagree with the points you've made to any great degree, if you read back I even say "it's not impossible to do", in fact, many of your points I don't raise - you have put words into my mouth.
What I would say though is that at the moment, people aren't building 15 power stations a week, in fact they've done the reverse. I say this is short-sighted when you consider the figures of scale I gave if you want to get off fossil fuel in 25 years...would you not agree?
Do you not see a correlation between energy consumption and population? I said, again, if you read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote, 'optimum' population.
Over-population and continued growth and therefore increasing competition for dwindling resources seems to be a blind-alley, it has to stop somewhere and I would imagine there to be an optimum population figure well below where we are now (in light of our advancing technology) that slows down the consumption of resources (food, space, water, fuel).
But now I'm getting off the point, which was specific to the thread title, that generally no, wind power isn't going to solve our problems.
I was offering a scale of work to be done, and more specifically how negligible putting up a wind-farm a month is in comparison; whether this is achievable now or in the future isn't a question of industrial capacity, but of political will and financing, I never said it wasn't possible or scary, just very unlikely practically and much more involved than people would first think.
If you read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote, you'll see that I don't disagree with the points you've made to any great degree, if you read back I even say "it's not impossible to do", in fact, many of your points I don't raise - you have put words into my mouth.
What I would say though is that at the moment, people aren't building 15 power stations a week, in fact they've done the reverse. I say this is short-sighted when you consider the figures of scale I gave if you want to get off fossil fuel in 25 years...would you not agree?
Do you not see a correlation between energy consumption and population? I said, again, if you read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote, 'optimum' population.
Over-population and continued growth and therefore increasing competition for dwindling resources seems to be a blind-alley, it has to stop somewhere and I would imagine there to be an optimum population figure well below where we are now (in light of our advancing technology) that slows down the consumption of resources (food, space, water, fuel).
But now I'm getting off the point, which was specific to the thread title, that generally no, wind power isn't going to solve our problems.
Original post by Daniel_R
Al right I didn't know that 
Binary cycle geothermal plants look promising
Also
Thorium reactors are a good alternative to Nuclear reactors.
Binary cycle geothermal plants look promising
Also
Thorium reactors are a good alternative to Nuclear reactors.
I thought Thorium reactors are a type of Nuclear reactor...
ITT: people with no background in energy or environmental economics, climate science, engineering and so on believing themselves fit to solve the vast, intricate problems met by those deciding UK energy policy.
I do hope people realise that wind power isn't seen as a complete solution but rather part of a batch of renewable energy solutions which will be introduced over the coming years to eventually make the uk a self sufficient and clean energy producer.
Original post by Grey_Fox
I was offering a scale of work to be done, and more specifically how negligible putting up a wind-farm a month is in comparison; whether this is achievable now or in the future isn't a question of industrial capacity, but of political will and financing, I never said it wasn't possible or scary, just very unlikely practically and much more involved than people would first think.
It's no more unlikely for that reason than that the grid will be replaced as it decays due to wear and tear, which is ~100% likely.
What I would say though is that at the moment, people aren't building 15 power stations a week, in fact they've done the reverse. I say this is short-sighted when you consider the figures of scale I gave if you want to get off fossil fuel in 25 years...would you not agree?
Yes.
Do you not see a correlation between energy consumption and population? I said, again, if you read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote, 'optimum' population.
Sure, but I also see a correlation between energy production and population. The limit is workforce available to build powerstations, and that goes up/down proportional to population.
Over-population and continued growth and therefore increasing competition for dwindling resources seems to be a blind-alley, it has to stop somewhere and I would imagine there to be an optimum population figure well below where we are now (in light of our advancing technology) that slows down the consumption of resources (food, space, water, fuel).
idk, how do you even define optimum population? Using the term "over-population" to describe the current level seems to be question-begging.
Also wind farms produce 2.5 watts per square meter meaning you would need a far half the size of the uk to power the whole UK on wind energy. Although this sounds fairly ridiculous, if we were to utilise our offshore space not just costal area but further out it is possible to power the whole UK on wind power alone. I'm not suggesting we should do this, just making a point that it is viable.
Original post by Observatory
Sure, but I also see a correlation between energy production and population. The limit is workforce available to build powerstations, and that goes up/down proportional to population.
idk, how do you even define optimum population? Using the term "over-population" to describe the current level seems to be question-begging.
Sure, but I also see a correlation between energy production and population. The limit is workforce available to build powerstations, and that goes up/down proportional to population.
idk, how do you even define optimum population? Using the term "over-population" to describe the current level seems to be question-begging.
Humans have existed in a population range of 2 people to 6 Billion; in 1950 it was about 2.5 billion, that would cut energy needs by 60%; people still managed to produce enough energy then and we'd have the advantages of existing infrastructure, further advanced technology (in terms of extraction and end-user), more efficient manufacturing process' and a new emphasis on renewable energy sources.
I'm not saying 2.5B is optimum, but it's an example. We managed then with far more rudimentary methods than today.
Original post by Foghorn Leghorn
Where are you getting this information from?
A mixture of common sense and general reading really. Not only have you got the initial costs of producing the actual structure, but the maintenance costs as well as legal fees and whatnot. It all adds up.
Original post by planetearth
Wind power is great for developing countries and for people to use on a local level as they provide electricity for basic functions (for example many remote villages in a huge variety of developing and developed countries recieve essential electricity supply from wind turbines).
And engineers are constantly making wind trubines more cost effective, efficient and ergonomic. In five years time wind turbines will be able to produce a lot more energy than current ones today. On its own wind will not be the solution, but it will be part of it.
And engineers are constantly making wind trubines more cost effective, efficient and ergonomic. In five years time wind turbines will be able to produce a lot more energy than current ones today. On its own wind will not be the solution, but it will be part of it.
I agree, especially the part in bold.
Original post by Darkphilosopher
I thought Thorium reactors are a type of Nuclear reactor...
Yeah im wrong however they are far far safer and less radioactive
Original post by Rascacielos
A mixture of common sense and general reading really. Not only have you got the initial costs of producing the actual structure, but the maintenance costs as well as legal fees and whatnot. It all adds up.
So basically you made it up?
Presumably the reason wind turbines can't be placed closer together is because of the very large disruption in airflow caused by each turbine. You'd need to spread out the turbines to avoid them interfering with the amount of effective energy from the wind each receives.
There seem to be some people taking issue with wind energy because it would take a huge amount of space to power a lot of stuff solely by wind, but I think that's missing the point. Nobody (well, nobody with a decent understanding of the situation) is suggesting that wind farms should form a large percentage of the UK's power generation, but that doesn't mean that wind farms aren't effective if they're used sensibly. A lot of people get very involved in the idea that renewable energy is a partisan world where one energy source will eventually 'win', but the reality is that a sustainable future involves energy generation according to what is locally effective. If you have sun, why not build solar panels; if you have coasts, why not use tidal power; if you have wind, why not use wind farms.
Not noise! That's way worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide!
There seem to be some people taking issue with wind energy because it would take a huge amount of space to power a lot of stuff solely by wind, but I think that's missing the point. Nobody (well, nobody with a decent understanding of the situation) is suggesting that wind farms should form a large percentage of the UK's power generation, but that doesn't mean that wind farms aren't effective if they're used sensibly. A lot of people get very involved in the idea that renewable energy is a partisan world where one energy source will eventually 'win', but the reality is that a sustainable future involves energy generation according to what is locally effective. If you have sun, why not build solar panels; if you have coasts, why not use tidal power; if you have wind, why not use wind farms.
Original post by JamalAhmed
Wind turbines make a lot of noise, take up a lot of space and don't really look that nice.
Not noise! That's way worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A Gravitational fields help
- TSR Goes Green: Careers in the Environmental Sector
- Oxford - Cambridge Renewable Energy
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- Elective Modules at Bath Chemical Engineering
- French A level IRP
- Lougbough or aston university
- renewable energy engineerin Exeter
- Environmental engineering vs environmental chemistry: which tends to have more...?
- Earth Sciences uni choice
- Chemistry degree
- Welcome to the A level forum!
- Sustainable Built Environment, Energy, Resources Bsc/MEng
- Study material for MSc Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition
- Which major would be best for this idea?
- Does car insurance go down after a year?
- EPQ feedback
- best field to specialise in materials science and engineering?
- What jobs can you do with a physics degree?
- Sustainability and Architecture EPQ Ideas
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 24 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
