Renewal energy...... im not a rocket scientist, but.....

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???

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

jogijogan

or we could mine coal again, seen as the whole country is sitting on a giant slab of coal.

It would reduce our energy billd significantly.

Reply 2

sarcos

If you move the turbines too close together it actually reduces the power output as opposed to just having fewer but more spaced turbines

Reply 3

JamalAhmed

Wind turbines make a lot of noise, take up a lot of space and don't really look that nice.

Reply 4

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.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

Keckers

Wind turbines are rubbish, in all honesty.

The whole wind turbine building thing is just a massive tax fiddle by land owners seeking government handouts for having them on their land. It isn't an energy issue, it's a financial one.

edit: well it's nice to see that people disagree with me enough to neg but aren't willing to contest my point at all.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 6

Grey_Fox

Wind turbines are not a solution, in fact, until we get fusion sorted, there is no 'renewable' solution. There is only the huge reserves of oil and coal that was supposed to have run out a decade ago and which make us depend on being friendly with unfriendly countries and fission which leaves us with waste we can't tell people 50,000 years in the future about.

Uncomfortable situation, but wind isn't the answer, just a waste of resources, money and effort...

Reply 7

billydisco

Original post by Grey_Fox

why isnt wind a solution? Surely there will always be wind? :s

Reply 8

No Man

Given how many of the UK's towns are coastal or near water, they should be using tidal/wave energy more.

Reply 9

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.

Reply 10

kingkongjaffa

Original post by billydisco

why isnt wind a solution? Surely there will always be wind? :s

not cost effective and not a reliable source of constant energy, since it's expensive to set up, peak output isn't that great and it's very varied and sometimes no wind at all so no power.

Reply 11

kingkongjaffa

nuclear power is the way to go but badly designed old japanese reactors have scare mongered everyone into denouncing them/ look at france they are 77.1% nuclear and have never had a problem.

Reply 12

kingkongjaffa

nuclear power is the way to go but badly designed old japanese reactors have scare mongered everyone into denouncing them/ look at france they are 77.1% nuclear and have never had a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Reply 13

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.

Reply 14

No Man

Original post by planetearth

I would wager that solar power is better on local levels and for developing countries, especially those in desert areas.

Reply 15

Grey_Fox

Here are some calculations for you about what needs to be done regarding 100% renewable energy replacement:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoi5c5_renewable-energy-and-the-future-some-calculations_tech

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

Grey_Fox

Original post by billydisco

why isnt wind a solution? Surely there will always be wind? :s

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)

Reply 17

FiniteMr

I believe I read a figure saying that the Sahara desert was big enough to be covered entirely in thermal generators (where huge greenhouses trap heat and warm air, sending it up a huge chimney through a turbine) to supply twice the needs of the modern world.