Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by folde)
    The Lib Dems are ruining this country trying to pander to La-La-Land greens. Nuclear is the way forward. The reason these "environmentalists" won't accept it is because being "green" is like a religion now. If there isn't disaster looming, their whole manifesto is unlikely to appeal to anyone.
    Good post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sicarius1992)
    Points 5 and 6 are hilarious, 6 is totally subjective and 5 is probably false. Evidence for bird deaths please?
    You have heard of Google and Youtube?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)
    Correction: They produce no electricity when there is no wind. Also, points 3 and 4 prove you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. Theyre not switched off in winds that are too strong, they're speed limited.
    The hydraulic brake requires electricity from the grid.

    As for 3 here's a list of Wind Turbine parts that suck electricity from the grid

    http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

    Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†

    yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine

    blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)

    lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.

    heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power

    heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"

    oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox

    hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)

    thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost

    magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more

    using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind
    There you are: * by 3000. I trust I've taught you something new about the uselessness of Wind Farms.

    OK. Lets take a look at Coal/Oil/Gas fired power stations and how absolutely brilliant they are:

    1. Thermodynamic efficiency of less than 60% in a combined cycle. Often much, much lower (gas turbine is about 40%, with a Rankine 'bottom' cycle it may reach just above 50%)
    That's much better than Wind Farms, which are about 25%.

    2. Fuel is imported from around the world, making it stupid expensive, and having no energy security.
    We have coal and gas in this country. There are also these things called "ships" and "docks" and a class of people called dockers, sailers, miners and geologists.

    3. Initial cost is ridiculous
    Cheaper than the so-called alternatives. And you get electricity when it's cold.

    4. Running cost is ridiculous
    Wind Farms require maintainence. Salt, wind, ice, heat, sand, dust - exposure and lots of moving mechanical parts don't mix. Statues weather and look good; wind turbines weather and stop producing electricity.

    5. Waste heat is pretty much useless unless it can be distributed for heating purposes.
    Heat is an added bonus - you don't get heat with Wind Farms. When it's cold you don't get electricity either.

    Do you want to have a power station in the city?
    Do you want a power station on a hill top in a region of outstanding natural beauty?

    6. In a gas turbine, up to 70% of shaft power is used in the air compressor
    Gas fired power stations are the most efficient we have. Your statistics are meaningless in isolation of the costs of other power sources.

    7. In a steam engine, the feed water pump uses almost no energy, but there is immense heat dumped in the condenser as we cannot pump a wet steam mixture.

    This is not even including the environmental points. Fossil fuel powered power stations can kill more than a few rare birds.
    Explain how? Wind Farms kill thousands a year. They also kill rare bats.


    There is a place for all types of power generation. Just because you're sore that there is a farm near your house, doesn't mean the technology is stupid.
    I make a distinction between a single Wind Turbine and a Wind Farm. One is clever, the other is unnecessary, cruel and exploitative of those poor people who are forced to pay for it, and useless when the wind doesn't blow.

    I don't live near a Wind Farm or a proposed Wind Farm site. This is all natural.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    nuclear power is the future.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    You have heard of Google and Youtube?
    I have an I've seen figures for bird deaths and they are very small in comparison to windows/cats etc. Kill all cats and stop using windows I say!!!111oneone!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sicarius1992)
    I have an I've seen figures for bird deaths and they are very small in comparison to windows/cats etc. Kill all cats and stop using windows I say!!!111oneone!
    Have you learned about bat deaths too? Have you seen youtube footage of a Wind Turbine killing a rare eagle?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    Have you learned about bat deaths too? Have you seen youtube footage of a Wind Turbine killing a rare eagle?
    Now bat deaths make slightly more sense than bird ones I'll give you that. (Wasn't me who negged you btw)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    The hydraulic brake requires electricity from the grid.

    As for 3 here's a list of Wind Turbine parts that suck electricity from the grid



    There you are: * by 3000. I trust I've taught you something new about the uselessness of Wind Farms.



    That's much better than Wind Farms, which are about 25%.



    We have coal and gas in this country. There are also these things called "ships" and "docks" and a class of people called dockers, sailers, miners and geologists.



    Cheaper than the so-called alternatives. And you get electricity when it's cold.



    Wind Farms require maintainence. Salt, wind, ice, heat, sand, dust - exposure and lots of moving mechanical parts don't mix. Statues weather and look good; wind turbines weather and stop producing electricity.



    Heat is an added bonus - you don't get heat with Wind Farms. When it's cold you don't get electricity either.



    Do you want a power station on a hill top in a region of outstanding natural beauty?



    Gas fired power stations are the most efficient we have. Your statistics are meaningless in isolation of the costs of other power sources.

    7. In a steam engine, the feed water pump uses almost no energy, but there is immense heat dumped in the condenser as we cannot pump a wet steam mixture.



    Explain how? Wind Farms kill thousands a year. They also kill rare bats.




    I make a distinction between a single Wind Turbine and a Wind Farm. One is clever, the other is unnecessary, cruel and exploitative of those poor people who are forced to pay for it, and useless when the wind doesn't blow.

    I don't live near a Wind Farm or a proposed Wind Farm site. This is all natural.

    I know exactly how a wind turbine operates, thank you very much, and I'd like to say that, for the most part, that list is fairly accurate, yet obviously from a biased source, which is not very technologically knowledgeable. It's pretty obvious that any aerodynamic component requires de-icing during extremely cold weather. All wind turbines use pitch control to regulate the rotational speed, and this achieves almost all the the braking required in high speeds. Only during storm conditions with gale force winds is the use of a hydraulic or mechanical brake required. Any HV DC/AC conversion requires thyristors, which are actually an extremely power efficient way of handling the conversion, if you didnt know, any power supply to a DC machine (i.e. your computer) makes use of them. Wind turbines almost exclusively use an asynchronous generator, also known as an induction generator. These require power to magnetise the stator, which is supplied by the generator itself. True, that if the wind is non existent, then the power required to magnetise the stator may exceed the power output. Having the turbine operational during low wind speeds is at the discretion of the management system, and can easily be avoided. In fact, I'm sure all modern wind turbines do this.

    The last point is an absolute joke and completely rubbishes the credibility of the article. Next time try and quote a more neutral source than a poorly designed anti-wind turbine website.

    If you think that a machine exists that can produce power whilst consuming absolutely nothing for its operation, you are delusional. Here's something you didn't know: The cooling pumps alone for a traditional thermal power station consume around 5% of total power generation, just to move the water carrying the waste heat the plant produces due to its 50% efficiency. Wind turbines actually have a spectacularly low operational consumption compared to a traditional power station. Everything takes power to run. Learn some engineering, and at least become qualified to talk out of your ass. And, no, you (i.e. the website you copypasta'd) did not teach me anything about wind farms.


    (Original post by twl)
    That's much better than Wind Farms, which are about 25%.
    If you knew anything at all, you'll understand the difference between thermal efficiency (the ratio of useful power output to the fuel consumed that you pay for), and annual average power generation as a ratio of a turbines maximum rated power.

    (Original post by twl)
    We have coal and gas in this country. There are also these things called "ships" and "docks" and a class of people called dockers, sailers, miners and geologists.
    Yes, coal exists in Britain. It is high-sulphur coal, so a large amount of coal is imported to meet EU sulphur emission regulations (which, by the way, were actually adjusted for the UK taking into account the high sulphur content of the fuel). Also, you propose a reason against wind farms is to keep jobs?? Are you kidding? Because wind farms design, make, transport, and set themselves up without any human interaction. Oh, and I'm sure the shipping vessels that are used to import the fuel are British owned, and the sailors on the cargo ships are British, not Philippinos.

    (Original post by twl)
    Cheaper than the so-called alternatives. And you get electricity when it's cold.
    Any renewable is expensive to set up. BTW, how much do you think an oil refinery costs?


    (Original post by twl)
    Wind Farms require maintainence. Salt, wind, ice, heat, sand, dust - exposure and lots of moving mechanical parts don't mix. Statues weather and look good; wind turbines weather and stop producing electricity.
    A wind turbines life is far longer than the payoff time, and most last a lot longer than is initially expected of them. Cheaper in the long run brah, but I guess these days everyone has the patience of a starved dog in a butchers shop.

    (Original post by twl)
    Heat is an added bonus - you don't get heat with Wind Farms. When it's cold you don't get electricity either.
    On what magical planet is wasted heat ejected to the surroundings a bonus? Pretty much no power stations in the UK can make use of anything over a few percent of the waste heat for other purposes.

    (Original post by twl)
    Do you want a power station on a hill top in a region of outstanding natural beauty?
    Compared to smog outside my front door, I don't particularly give a ****. I spend far more time at home and at school compared to ogling at the rolling meadows. Plus, not everyone thinks that wind turbines are ugly.

    (Original post by twl)
    Gas fired power stations are the most efficient we have. Your statistics are meaningless in isolation of the costs of other power sources.
    Wait, who's talking about bull**** statistics?

    (Original post by twl)
    Explain how? Wind Farms kill thousands a year. They also kill rare bats.
    I truly dread living in a world where people think there are no consequences to burning fossil fuels. Good god.

    (Original post by twl)
    I make a distinction between a single Wind Turbine and a Wind Farm. One is clever, the other is unnecessary, cruel and exploitative of those poor people who are forced to pay for it, and useless when the wind doesn't blow.
    I never said a huge percentage of our power should come from wind turbines. That's infeasible given power fluctuations. But it is absolutely retarded thinking that free power shouldn't be used. Yes. Free. A few years after installation, the cost of running a wind turbine compared to running a traditional power station would have paid the wind turbine off, and thereafter producing arguably 'free' electricity. I'm not sure about you, but personally I don't think its cruel and exploitative to provide free, clean power to people.

    Anyway, I wrote such a lengthy response out of boredom. That's what happens the day after you finish exams. Please, if you have any more crap to talk, don't hesitate to write it down. I will gleefully ignore it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick Longjohnson)
    I know exactly how a wind turbine operates, thank you very much, and I'd like to say that, for the most part, that list is fairly accurate, yet obviously from a biased source, which is not very technologically knowledgeable. It's pretty obvious that any aerodynamic component requires de-icing during extremely cold weather. All wind turbines use pitch control to regulate the rotational speed, and this achieves almost all the the braking required in high speeds. Only during storm conditions with gale force winds is the use of a hydraulic or mechanical brake required. Any HV DC/AC conversion requires thyristors, which are actually an extremely power efficient way of handling the conversion, if you didnt know, any power supply to a DC machine (i.e. your computer) makes use of them. Wind turbines almost exclusively use an asynchronous generator, also known as an induction generator. These require power to magnetise the stator, which is supplied by the generator itself. True, that if the wind is non existent, then the power required to magnetise the stator may exceed the power output. Having the turbine operational during low wind speeds is at the discretion of the management system, and can easily be avoided. In fact, I'm sure all modern wind turbines do this.
    My point is this all requires an input of electricity, making the Wind Turbine extremely complicated and expensive to run, and an inefficient way to produce electricity for the mass market.

    Note I'm not saying an individual turbine is bad and should never be used to produce any electricity. Single turbines in the right place have applications... My point is Wind Farms are useless because you couldn't design a worse system for bringing cheap energy to the mass market.

    True, that if the wind is non existent, then the power required to magnetise the stator may exceed the power output.

    Heh.

    The last point is an absolute joke and completely rubbishes the credibility of the article. Next time try and quote a more neutral source than a poorly designed anti-wind turbine website.
    You're claiming the speed has never been turned up to please visitors? It's possible, then again I'm willing to believe anything about those who fiddle expenses to recoup the cost of a Mars bar.


    If you think that a machine exists that can produce power whilst consuming absolutely nothing for its operation, you are delusional.
    Guess what: I don't think that. What you refer to is a perpetual motion machine. Wind Farms are the opposite, in the worse case scenario, rich man toys that require electricity to (appear to) produce electricity.

    Here's something you didn't know: The cooling pumps alone for a traditional thermal power station consume around 5% of total power generation, just to move the water carrying the waste heat the plant produces due to its 50% efficiency. Wind turbines actually have a spectacularly low operational consumption compared to a traditional power station. Everything takes power to run. Learn some engineering, and at least become qualified to talk out of your ass. And, no, you (i.e. the website you copypasta'd) did not teach me anything about wind farms.
    Traditional forms of energy are the most efficient way to produce energy. Not claiming we shouldn't research effective alternatives! My point: Wind Farms are useless. Stop paying for these white elephants of the wealthy that help raise electricity prices and push millions into fuel poverty.


    If you knew anything at all, you'll understand the difference between thermal efficiency (the ratio of useful power output to the fuel consumed that you pay for), and annual average power generation as a ratio of a turbines maximum rated power.
    Wind is fuel. When the wind doesn't blow you don't get any electricity at all.

    Yes, coal exists in Britain. It is high-sulphur coal, so a large amount of coal is imported to meet EU sulphur emission regulations (which, by the way, were actually adjusted for the UK taking into account the high sulphur content of the fuel).
    It's not all high-sulphur coal and there are techniques to clean the coal.

    Also, you propose a reason against wind farms is to keep jobs?? Are you kidding? Because wind farms design, make, transport, and set themselves up without any human interaction.
    They don't keep many jobs - not jobs for the masses, like dockers and miners. These are jobs for the boys. Bankers, carbon traders, scientists, engineers, industrialists - the blue collar jobs like, steel workers, are outsourced to India.

    Wind Farms require maintainence. Off-shore farms require fleets of specially designed vessels. Those who sail them aren't fishermen.

    Oh, and I'm sure the shipping vessels that are used to import the fuel are British owned, and the sailors on the cargo ships are British, not Philippinos.
    Coal doesn't need to be imported we have hundreds of years of the stuff here for modern Clean Coal power plants.


    Any renewable is expensive to set up.
    Continue to research renewable energy but don't set them up until they're cheap as traditional sources. You don't buy cars with square wheels, do you?

    BTW, how much do you think an oil refinery costs?
    Very expensive but then oil is a very useful product for the mass market - wind isn't. Wind Turbines have specialist applications - but Wind Farms are useless because wind is unsuitable for energy production for the mass market. Wind Farms are a scam to transfer money from poor people, who are told they must believe in Wind Farms and pay for them, to the scammers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A more relevant point is that we only get power from wind turbines when it is windy, meaning either we have to have back-up power plants running the whole time for when its not windy to provide the required amount of electricity, or we don't produce enough power when it isn't windy.
    Basically a non constant power source is only realistically contributing the potential minimum power that it may produce, as such wind turbines cannot be considered a viable energy source.

    p.s. twl is right about gas being the most efficient form of energy production, and before you say learn some engineering about available thermal energy and average produced power, I am studying engineering at cambridge and wind turbines only extract about 27% of the potential energy from the wind.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    The only wind turbines that would make any sense would be small ones in your own backyard for personal use. But that does not benefit big business so they are discouraged.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lumberjack77)
    The only wind turbines that would make any sense would be small ones in your own backyard for personal use. But that does not benefit big business so they are discouraged.
    That's completely backwards. The only wind power that makes real sense in the UK is large-scale off-shore.

    Small wind turbines in backyards have been shown time and time again to have extremely long pay-back periods because windspeeds experienced are very low and the efficiency of the turbines is poor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The best way forward is to have a balanced and mixed generation portfolio going forwards and that does include wind power. It seems that the OP has completely forgotten that the vast majority of new wind will be off-shore in the UK as that is where our largest wind resource is. Of course, wind isn't cheap, but it is low carbon and doesn't have a legacy like nuclear - that's what you are paying for. The OP is living in a bubble if he or she thinks that you get anything for nothing. It's naive to think that modern generation in a low carbon environment is going to be as cheap as before. Unabated fossil generation is on borrowed time.

    People are right to raise concerns about back-up plant, etc. that's why a good mix of generation assets is needed, then we can maximise the benefits of having a significant proportion of our power generated by renewables whilst retaining flexibility.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    While i do not advocate the use of one source of energy for all our needs, can somebody tell me why solar energy is not being pushed given its enormous potential and the fact that the energy can be stored. Also, has there being much development into condensates being used as a power source, potentially there is near infinite energy potential.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the UK there is far too little sun to provide a decent amount of power from solar, and solar energy is no more storable than any other form of energy, just about the only way to actually store energy from the national grid is through using HEP stations such as Dinorwig in wales.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    The best way forward is to have a balanced and mixed generation portfolio going forwards and that does include wind power. It seems that the OP has completely forgotten that the vast majority of new wind will be off-shore in the UK as that is where our largest wind resource is.
    The wind doesn't always blow off-shore.

    The OP is living in a bubble if he or she thinks that you get anything for nothing. It's naive to think that modern generation in a low carbon environment is going to be as cheap as before. Unabated fossil generation is on borrowed time.
    Methane clathrates, shale gas, plus 400 years worth of coal. That's enough time.

    People are right to raise concerns about back-up plant, etc. that's why a good mix of generation assets is needed
    Wind Farms are useless. They don't add to the mix. They're a Reverse Robin Hood: take money from the poor which is given to the rich. It's not about electricity generation or the environment. It's about stealing money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twl)
    The wind doesn't always blow off-shore.
    So?


    Methane clathrates, shale gas, plus 400 years worth of coal. That's enough time.
    It's not a resource issue, it's a regulation (i.e. political) issue.


    Wind Farms are useless. They don't add to the mix. They're a Reverse Robin Hood: take money from the poor which is given to the rich. It's not about electricity generation or the environment. It's about stealing money.
    They are expensive, no doubt, but as I said before, there is a price for reducing carbon intensiveness of energy generation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They are pretty useless, but we have to SAVE THE PLANET MAN!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    While i do not advocate the use of one source of energy for all our needs, can somebody tell me why solar energy is not being pushed given its enormous potential and the fact that the energy can be stored. Also, has there being much development into condensates being used as a power source, potentially there is near infinite energy potential.
    It is pushed in Southern Europe and also through Desertec.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ChemistryBoy, how is any energy source that doesn't always provide power any use? The same net amount of power needs to be produced and the capability of wind farms has to be matched by back up sources for when there is no wind, meaning all the power that is produced by wind turbines is entirely surplus, so actually there is no carbon improvement over gas/oil/coal fired power stations.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.