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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    Apparently people are kicking up a stink over a lib dem leafletter taking a labour party leaflet out of a letter box and putting his own in.

    Surely that's just standard practice? It's what I was told to do and did.

    Anyone else who has gone leafletting have any input?
    I've never gone leafletting but I doubt the Lib Dems are the first to do this, and I doubt they will be the last.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Well it's not just the wind being too strong but also too weak.
    And how many days of the year is the wind too weak to produce any power?

    Wind power isn't a great source of power.
    Rubbish! It's free and won't run out any time soon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    And how many days of the year is the wind too weak to produce any power?



    Rubbish! It's free and won't run out any time soon.
    I think he was referring more to current technology used in production of Wind Energy, which is quite inefficient.

    But then, all means of energy production is inefficient. The things we have as fuels to produce energy don't produce that much to begin with, and we're hopelessly crap at getting energy out of anything to begin with, so the amount we get is even less.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    And how many days of the year is the wind too weak to produce any power?
    I cannot remember the exact figures and I cannot be bothered to search for them, but wind turbines work about 30% of the time - it's something that pathetic. If they worked I would support them.


    Rubbish! It's free and won't run out any time soon
    You obviously don't read science journals - there was a brilliant article in one a few months ago about how renewable energy isn't as renewable as we thought.

    (Original post by Nothos)
    Apparently people are kicking up a stink over a lib dem leafletter taking a labour party leaflet out of a letter box and putting his own in.

    Surely that's just standard practice? It's what I was told to do and did.

    Anyone else who has gone leafletting have any input?
    We were told it was illegal to do - we never did anything like that. The Lib Dems did it to us, but we never did it to them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13518731

    ^^ Now that is interesting.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ameri...ily-in-crisis/

    I didn't realise he went back again!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13507728

    :lol:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Beast, impervious to bullets, bombs and chemical attacks, but bamboozled by ramps :o:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I cannot remember the exact figures and I cannot be bothered to search for them, but wind turbines work about 30% of the time - it's something that pathetic. If they worked I would support them.
    You're talking utter rubbish again. The correct figure is 80-85% of the time, with a load factor of 0.3. Which isn't all that less than coal and nuclear.

    You obviously don't read science journals - there was a brilliant article in one a few months ago about how renewable energy isn't as renewable as we thought.
    :rofl:

    Which "science journal" was this? How do you even have access to science journals given that you are not at university?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    The Beast, impervious to bullets, bombs and chemical attacks, but bamboozled by ramps :o:
    Slightly annoying that for the crowd that the bus went past as Obama got out of the car :mad:

    He's being treated like a celebrity though its ridiculous. Imagine Cameron going to the US and getting that sort of reaction
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/americas-most-hated-family-in-crisis/

    I didn't realise he went back again!
    Yeah it was on the BBC a few months ago.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    He's being treated like a celebrity though its ridiculous. Imagine Cameron going to the US and getting that sort of reaction
    Well to be fair he is the president of the world's most powerful and influential country, who has just killed one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. People are quite excited to see him.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    You're talking utter rubbish again. The correct figure is 80-85% of the time, with a load factor of 0.3. Which isn't all that less than coal and nuclear
    I said I cannot remember the figues and I am not going to search for them.

    Wind turbines produce at or above their average rate around 40% of the time. Conversely, they produce little or no power around 60% of the time

    They don't work all the time, for the majority of the time they produce little or no power, they will result in NO conventional power plants being shut down because you need backup in case the wind isn't blowing.

    They are ghastly, they are responsible for the decline in bat populations, they are noisy...
    .

    Which "science journal" was this? How do you even have access to science journals given that you are not at university?[/QUOTE]

    There was actually a thread on TSR about it. Ill see if I can dig it up
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry wasn't a science journal, it was a science magazine. My mistake. It was in the New Scientist. So yes a magazine not a peer reviewed scientific journal - I apologise.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...wable%20energy

    ^^ There's the thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Sorry wasn't a science journal, it was a science magazine. My mistake. It was in the New Scientist. So yes a magazine not a peer reviewed scientific journal - I apologise.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...wable%20energy

    ^^ There's the thread.
    Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. On reading it again though, I notice the rather odd statement of "Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change."
    This would be pretty much impossible to achieve, since wind farms can only be put in places where wind energy is sufficiently high to make them viable. Unless we're going to blanket every square metre of the world's oceans with turbines, his hypothesis is kind of moot. I don't think anyone really advocates using wind power alone to meet our energy needs - it would be part of a much wider portfolio of solutions, including solar, tidal, wave, nuclear and improving energy efficiency. Wind power would only be harnessed in small, concentrated pockets such as northern Europe.
    Wind energy definitely isn't perfect, but no source of energy is. That's why the future will almost certainly not be nuclear or renewables, but nuclear and renewables.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. On reading it again though, I notice the rather odd statement of "Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change."
    This would be pretty much impossible to achieve, since wind farms can only be put in places where wind energy is sufficiently high to make them viable. Unless we're going to blanket every square metre of the world's oceans with turbines, his hypothesis is kind of moot. I don't think anyone really advocates using wind power alone to meet our energy needs - it would be part of a much wider portfolio of solutions, including solar, tidal, wave, nuclear and improving energy efficiency. Wind power would only be harnessed in small, concentrated pockets such as northern Europe.
    Wind energy definitely isn't perfect, but no source of energy is. That's why the future will almost certainly not be nuclear or renewables, but nuclear and renewables.
    Tell that to the Green party who seem to believe we can run the world on renewables.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Addicted to listening to these popular songs in German. How the hell do they manage to get the words to fit the tune?

    This isn't their best one by the way.

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I said I cannot remember the figues and I am not going to search for them.

    Wind turbines produce at or above their average rate around 40% of the time. Conversely, they produce little or no power around 60% of the time

    They don't work all the time, for the majority of the time they produce little or no power, they will result in NO conventional power plants being shut down because you need backup in case the wind isn't blowing.

    They are ghastly, they are responsible for the decline in bat populations, they are noisy...
    .

    Which "science journal" was this? How do you even have access to science journals given that you are not at university?
    There was actually a thread on TSR about it. Ill see if I can dig it up[/QUOTE]

    Again you are totally wrong.

    Firstly, as I said, they have a load factor of 0.3. That means that over the course of the year they will have produced 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. This figure isn't that much below conventional fossil fuel stations. Now obviously some of the time they are going to be producing above average power and other times below average; this is because the blades are tuned to match the average local wind-speed and hence will be producing maximum output at closest to the average speed. Speeds at significantly above and below that local average will result in very low power outputs.

    Secondly, wind-turbines are not noisy at all. There are strict guidelines on the noise output of wind turbines. They are quieter than normal road traffic and even an office environment. The best way to see (or rather, hear) this for yourself is to actually go to one.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    This graph puts things in perspective.


    Lastly, bat deaths are very much a non-issue when you consider the deaths and environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, and that link from the New Scientist is a good reason why the New Scientist is not a good magazine in terms of credibility.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Again you are totally wrong.
    http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php

    ^^ That's where I got it from.

    It shows that 60% of the time they aren't generating a lot of power. In regards to noise each one can generate the same level of noise as a family car travelling at 70 mph. Noise can be subjective though...


    Lastly, bat deaths are very much a non-issue when you consider the deaths and environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, and that link from the New Scientist is a good reason why the New Scientist is not a good magazine in terms of credibility.

    So because you don't like it it's not credible? Interesting.

    And I love this constant referral to fossil fuels - your argument seems to be "something is worse thus this is good"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Energy Technology Load factor
    Sewage Gas 90%
    Farmyard Waste 90%
    Energy Crops 85%
    Landfill Gas 70-90%
    Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) 70-85%
    Waste Combustion 60-90%
    Coal 65-85%
    Nuclear Power 65-85%
    Hydro 30-50%
    Wind Energy 25-40%
    Wave Power 25%


    Is coal a fossil fuel? Because if so, then it is you who is totally wrong. You said "This figure isn't that much below conventional fossil fuel stations". The above shows that fossil fuels are twice that of wind power.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.