Turn on thread page Beta

"Wind and wave energy are not renewable after all" watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, the level of wind/wave capture required to a) supply our needs b) cause the problems outlined here is never going to happen. They're just not that efficient/numerous.

    We'd need something like a wind turbine over every square meter of the ocean. This report, whilst probably true, is like saying that a Dyson sphere (a giant solar panel that completely surrounds the sun) would 'adversely affect the environment of the solar system.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It was April 1st last week wasn't it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    Think of Wind/Wave energy as a bucket.
    We can take some water out of the bucket and it will be continually refilled and so there will be no real affect on the system (the bucket).

    However if we start taking water out of the bucket at a massive rate then the natural refilling of the bucket will not be able to keep up, and there will be a macroscopic change on the system.

    It is renewable in that it will always (ignoring what's going to happen in a few billion years time) be renewed, but if we take too much of the energy then it will have massive effects on our planet, which obviously doesn't sound too good.


    I would be interested if they have made similar studies into the effects of Nuclear Fusion power.
    For those who don't know, fusion would basically be infinite in that a tiny about of Hydrogen (which we can make as much as we like of) will produce, using the technical term, a **** load of energy.
    That said, if we want 20-30TW of electrical power, that means producing 100-150TW of heat energy from fusion. This is heat that would otherwise never be released into the system (fusion does not occur naturally on Earth), and would normally remain safely tied up as mass.
    So, what is the effect of producing an extra 100-150TW of heat in our system? Is that enough to change our planet as a whole?
    I bloody hope someone has asked this question high up, because clearly they didn't think through Wind power that thoroughly.

    As a side note, Fission is definitely not the way forward in the long term because, contrary to popular belief, there is not actually that much fissionable material out there. Less than 100 years of Uranium at current consumption (which is set to sky-rocket), although I don't know how much of the other materials we could use we have left.
    Thanks for your reply OP! ....twas' informative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    some solar (although perhaps not in the U.K).
    Why not the UK? Germany are the biggest investors in solar and they're in no better posistion than us. Solar seems like one of the more viable future solutions even for the UK. Prices are artificially inflated currently but will come down especially with the prospect of mass produced printed panels in the not to distant future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to go on record and doubt the credentials of the author. For an alleged physicist he sure seems to be confused over the technical definition of "free energy".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Why not the UK? Germany are the biggest investors in solar and they're in no better posistion than us. Solar seems like one of the more viable future solutions even for the UK. Prices are artificially inflated currently but will come down especially with the prospect of mass produced printed panels in the not to distant future.
    I said 'perhaps' because I don't know much about solar production.
    Well, I know how the cells or solar towers operate, but not how they'd perform in the UK.

    It would seem odd to me to start putting a lot of solar towers in the U.K, where the same structure could be erected in Africa or Arazona or Spain, etc., to produce twice as much power.

    But maybe you are right, I used the word 'perhaps' in my original statement to guard myself from either side because I don't speak with conviction things I do not know enough about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wind and wave energy are renewable. There will always be wind and water on this planet for obvious reasons. Having said that Wind energy is not very efficient, turbines only work when there is wind around in mountainous and coastal areas, costs a lot, is an eye sore, destroys local wildlife, disrupts transmission signals for TV and radio and overall does not produce anywhere near enough energy.

    Again with wave energy there are a lack of suitable sites and although it would have the capacity to make a lot of energy it also has environmental consquences in terms of the state of the water systems and the creatures that live in them. Technology for both forms of energy is no where near advanced enough either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Is the amount of energy extractable by wind turbines (which are obv only a few 100's feet tall) enough to cause the problems this guy is talking about... even if we covered the coastlines of the world with them?

    I still think it's an april fool tbh. though I'm not touting wind energy as the answer to our energy problems cos it's not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I've always wondered about this. Surely any method of generating usable energy will have some impact on the environment because it's got to be taken from somewhere. I don't think there is such thing as perfectly &quot;green&quot; energy. Anything we do is going to use up some natural resources.
    I think what green energy means is making use of all of the wasted energy in the environment. Plants have been getting their energy from sunlight for billions of years yet we haven't caught on to that yet.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Is the amount of energy extractable by wind turbines (which are obv only a few 100's feet tall) enough to cause the problems this guy is talking about... even if we covered the coastlines of the world with them?

    I still think it's an april fool tbh. though I'm not touting wind energy as the answer to our energy problems cos it's not.
    Cant be an april fools, first record i've found of it was on the 30th

    http://www.tw312.org.uk/?p=935

    (think that site has more info on the numbers as well, but I only gave it a very quick skim)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    I think what green energy means is making use of all of the wasted energy in the environment. Plants have been getting their energy from sunlight for billions of years yet we haven't caught on to that yet.
    But how much of that energy is really wasted? The Earth is pretty delicately balanced, if you start taking that energy from where it normally is, it's going to have some impact somewhere. If you use too much wind energy, that's going to have an effect on the weather. If you set up massive solar panels, all that land underneath them is no longer getting any sunlight. The question is can we generate all the power we need without it having a significant impact?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But how much of that energy is really wasted? The Earth is pretty delicately balanced, if you start taking that energy from where it normally is, it's going to have some impact somewhere. If you use too much wind energy, that's going to have an effect on the weather. If you set up massive solar panels, all that land underneath them is no longer getting any sunlight. The question is can we generate all the power we need without it having a significant impact?
    If you put the solar panels in an area where life is flourishing like the Amazon rainforest then I'd agree. There's plenty of barren deserts in the world which are sterile because life simply cannot exist due to the extremely hot and dry environment. Taking some of that wasted energy and redistributing to areas in need of that warmth for e.g. heating makes sense. It's a bit like a welfare system for the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    If you put the solar panels in an area where life is flourishing like the Amazon rainforest then I'd agree. There's plenty of barren deserts in the world which are sterile because life simply cannot exist due to the extremely hot and dry environment. Taking some of that wasted energy and redistributing to areas in need of that warmth for e.g. heating makes sense. It's a bit like a welfare system for the world.
    Yeah I get that, putting loads of them up in the Sahara probably won't have a very big impact. But if you completely covered the whole desert in them, it is going to have some knock on effects.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Yeah I get that, putting loads of them up in the Sahara probably won't have a very big impact. But if you completely covered the whole desert in them, it is going to have some knock on effects.
    As does pretty much anything we do as humans. Building big cities has effects on all sorts of things but we do it. The idea that we should be careful about using wind turbines and solar panels because the wind will "run out" or that some poor ground somewhere wont get heated seems absurd to me. We've messed about enough with the environment just by virtue of our industrial and technological expansion, it seems a bit crazy to shy away from ever affecting the planet now that we might be able to put some of that right. But yeah fusion etc all good too imo.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meteorshower)
    As does pretty much anything we do as humans. Building big cities has effects on all sorts of things but we do it. The idea that we should be careful about using wind turbines and solar panels because the wind will "run out" or that some poor ground somewhere wont get heated seems absurd to me. We've messed about enough with the environment just by virtue of our industrial and technological expansion, it seems a bit crazy to shy away from ever affecting the planet now that we might be able to put some of that right. But yeah fusion etc all good too imo.
    Yeah totally agree. We can't avoid having an impact on the environment and climate. Even if we all got on a spaceship and left, or all committed suicide at the same time, our absence would probably really screw things up too. I think it's just important to remember that nothing comes for free.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Yeah totally agree. We can't avoid having an impact on the environment and climate. Even if we all got on a spaceship and left, or all committed suicide at the same time, our absence would probably really screw things up too. I think it's just important to remember that nothing comes for free.
    Oh true, nothing comes for free. I guess I'm just nervous that people will us this article as an excuse for thinking what we consider renewable technologies to be crap.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In addition, I'm fairly sure this is identical to the current situation with geothermal energy- heat energy at local geothermal sites can be depleted.


    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Is the amount of energy extractable by wind turbines (which are obv only a few 100's feet tall) enough to cause the problems this guy is talking about... even if we covered the coastlines of the world with them?

    I still think it's an april fool tbh. though I'm not touting wind energy as the answer to our energy problems cos it's not.
    (Original post by SunderX)
    To be fair, the level of wind/wave capture required to a) supply our needs b) cause the problems outlined here is never going to happen. They're just not that efficient/numerous.

    We'd need something like a wind turbine over every square meter of the ocean. This report, whilst probably true, is like saying that a Dyson sphere (a giant solar panel that completely surrounds the sun) would 'adversely affect the environment of the solar system.
    The premise of this article is what might happen if we tried to meet a large proportion of our global energy needs from wind/wave power (I think 17W was the figure quoted). To actually undertake that would require a phenomenal number of wind turbines both onshore and offshore.

    Joineup, the issue is from 2nd April, so you can put your mind at ease. Not that there was any reason to believe this is an April Fool's in the first place.


    (Original post by py0alb)
    I'm going to go on record and doubt the credentials of the author. For an alleged physicist he sure seems to be confused over the technical definition of "free energy".
    NewScientist is a popular science magazine. And the author never claims to be a physicist.

    The technical definition of thermodynamic free energy is the quantity of work that can be extracted from a system, right? I don't see how that conflicts with the article... :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello All,

    I saw that artical too long ago. That NewScientist putout about wind turbines creating as much green house energy as conversional systems. The trouble is the government wants and the government gets.. What happens if it gets it wrong?
    Well nothing! Too them.

    In this case the government has gagged or so it seems the MoD: They put in a complaint about wind turbines in effectivility being a socurity risk as they interfere with RADAR. So it should never of got to the planning stage. As the government are breaking electromagnetic compatibility law (EMC) which is covered by BSI and EU regs. But who cares?

    They are going to change the law so its possible to get more wind turbines in place.
    It matters not that the EMC law is linked to other laws like human exposure to electromagnetic fields... We are all supposed to ignore this so it seems little known fact. The reliance is on if you don`t know your being zapped beyon legal limits of human exposure. And there`s only a handful that get sick or obviously sick then it does not matter. This is not delt with under the planning laws.
    The planning laws are the ones that count. Not the EMC Law.

    The fact it should not of even got to the planning laws in the 1st place when it breaks other laws matters not... Those of us who do have more then enough sense to know somethings not right with these windmills and transmitters are
    Oversensitive:

    The government, local councils and industry have twisted things to suit.
    For something that generates electricity why measure it with a noise meter?
    Is not noise part of the electromagnetic spectrum?
    They say these windmills generate so much power they assume all the power vanishes up the cable? To not only cause power surges in the local communities mains supply the windmills interfere with set top boxes and TV sets which is all part of breaking EMC Law.

    But that`s OK because the government is ignoring this till it can change the law.
    And then tell us that 40% of us will leave the planet with cancer. Which is all our fault.. Nothing to do with the government and industry making money or pretending they are creating something that with be useful.

    Where do I begin I must of written to NewScientist a very long time ago now.
    I warned them about aircon system then I found out wind power and the whole of green technology was a con.

    They did`nt take any notice popular opintion and lack of knowledge of the public at large is what they all seem to rely on. We are fed scraps by the media.
    The government and the public at large know nothing or so it seems.
    Industry and the MoD know.. What is the question.

    Well I can tell you Wind Turbines work every just as bit on so called nuclear and very low frequency as any nuclear device. Why this knowledge has been buried.
    That`s how mobile phones, computers wind power aircon systems and stealth
    which all evolved from MoD equipment. Some people say why don`t they use Tesla technology well they do. Only several changes in names and formats have confused most: RADAR works on low frequency and in another phase or polarity this is not measured..

    There were a number of stealth or reverse polarity motors developed by the military in the 1950`s all had to have shielding to protect the piolet...
    Yet the knowlege of how energy really works has been lost anicdotlal sayings in science taught in school have half the science missing.
    Those who did know have been gagged in some way or are long gone.

    Changes to solid state from moving motors have confused main stream science.
    Its not the rigg or blade generating the power its the electronics inside the turbine that`s so called convereting DC to AC. Except somehow this convertion is not in fact converting DC to AC. The polarity is being changed

    The metering system is not reflexting that change in anyway.
    For example its the differance between conventional and non-conventional flow.
    Except in school they don`t tell you how the waves are produced in say the movement of water and the movement of a blade along side let alone a soild state device. If you change the polarity what happens then?
    Look up wave machanics and scalar waves.

    If anyones still in here?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 3, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

1,412

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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

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