Wind power

[Vultch]

Agree 100% with above... we are stuffed until Fusion can be made to work

Interestingly the bulk of wars have been over oil.....

I'm watching for the first war over drinking water....

[adpsimpson]

Think it's been covered already, but for my 2p worth.

I know this is a 4x4 forum, so I'll risk my neck to say this, but... we should be taking the environmental damage seriously, and that includes not just token gestures (prius and micro turbines), but real change (large scale wind farms, solar heaters on all new houses, real use of hybrid technology in heavy duty vehicles, more use of public transport etc).

There are multiple ways to generate electricity on a small scale, of which micro wind turbines are the most visible. They are not, however, the most efficient, and often take years to pay back in terms of both financial cost and carbon emissions during manufacture.

Of course making one yourself is pretty easy, and greener than buying one if you use scavanged parts.

I don't think there has ever been a study of micro wind turbines which shows any real benefit in terms of either the environment or your own pocket. But they look good, so they're popular, so people think they must be a good idea and get on the band wagon.

So. If you want to have a house off the grid, you can get most of your power relatively easily from solar heaters and PV arrays. A battery backup will provide some buffer. However, a generator as a backup would be a very sensible option, and needn't be expensive or run very often.

[Albannach]

If the world was to run off wind power we would have to build a wind farm every 15 minutes to supply our needs this very minute and our needs increase every day.

That's not correct. At best it's manipulation of figures, more likely it's rubbish. But I'd be interested to read the source of the argument.

The same goes for any other available power source, its an impossible task unless we have fussion. PROVEN FACT.

Link to this proof please.

[adpsimpson]

...when the worlds society collapses ...look around, things aren't getting any better.

Aye, actually I saw the horsemen charging towards me on the horizon this morning.

Oh no, wait, that's bollox.

If the world was to run off wind power we would have to build a wind farm every 15 minutes to supply our needs this very minute and our needs increase every day.

I take it you don't really understand the difference between power and energy? Let me get this straight, to provide power at today's levels, we'd need to build "a wind farm" (what size, out of interest?) "every 15 minutes." What exactly does that mean?

Oh, but hey, putting something in capitals makes it true, right?

[Albannach]

Agree 100% with above... we are stuffed until Fusion can be made to work

It does work, just not on a small, controllable, scale.

Interestingly the bulk of wars have been over oil.....

Not true, territory then resources are at the root of most wars in history. We've only had oil for a short time remember.

[Vultch]

It does work, just not on a small, controllable, scale.



Not true, territory then resources are at the root of most wars in history. We've only had oil for a short time remember.

Well I should have said recent wars WWII and on. The Japanese and Americans had a bit of a disagreement, Japan was expanding and America seized oil resources in the East ..the rest is history

Just my thoughts, but wind turbines are not 100% ON, they depend on local wind conditions, how can you plan an energy grid using such random factor. Storing buffering energy yes nice idea but how on a scale that could satisfy the UK.
Also has anybody seen the maintenance plan for these things, we keep building them but they will require big overhauls in the future, bearings do wear out etc.
But so maintain so many ...what will that cost and has it been factored into the wind turbine argument. getting a big telescopic crane up a hill side to lift the turbine off...its got to be expensive.

Now I don;t have a wind turbine and could be talking out of my A*** but i feel they things are not fit and forget.

[slobodan]

Hmmm, now the Falklands have oil, or they are looking now.
Wonder if 'she' knew that 20 odd years ago?

If you stand behind a wind farm, is it less windy?

[Vultch]

I was at a seminar recently, wind turbines have a window of operation in terms of wind speed, at a certain speed they feather their blades to slow down /stop so that they dont self destruct.
They also are networked using clever software so a turbine at one part of the country tells its mates...wind on the way, etc....but its still not really controllable.

I do approve of improvement in equipment and homes etc to save energy, heat pumps yes...tidal power yes, at least you know the times of the tides...

But i feel nuclear is the only realistic option.

Say in 30 years when oil supplies really start to suffer how do you explain to people they will have to do with out / ration electricity / power because the wind that day was not strong enough....or should more have been spent on nuclear

[adpsimpson]

Just my thoughts, but wind turbines are not 100% ON, they depend on local wind conditions, how can you plan an energy grid using such random factor.

It's almost as though there must be entire companies dedicated to this, with whole teams of electrical and mechanical engineers, researchers doing PhDs, graduate recruitment schemes, etc.

Actually you're right. It's not easy. But then it's hardly like the national grid has a nice constant, level power demand on it the whole time either - it never has been easy. Luckily there's people working on it.

To answer the question, it looks like anything above about 15-25% of grid power being produced from wind would be unstable. The UK as a whole is massively below that target, and can absorb an enormous amount more power. NI is approaching grid saturation from wind production, and there are farms almost everywhere.

Also has anybody seen the maintenance plan for these things, we keep building them but they will require big overhauls in the future, bearings do wear out etc. But so maintain so many ...what will that cost and has it been factored into the wind turbine argument.

Just out of interest, have you ever seen the maintenance schedule for a coal fired power plant? What about a nuclear one? An old fashioned wind turbine has, basically, one moving part on a few bearings. Newer ones have blades with pitch control, and a gear box. That's it. Hardly complicated compared.

Most of them have a life span of 25 years, after which a deep maintenance puts them back to good as new. Again by contrast, the coal power plant near my house is 40 years old, has been through multiple deep maintenance cycles and should have been decommissioned 10 years ago.

And yes, I'm sure "they" thought of ongoing maintenance costs.

getting a big telescopic crane up a hill side to lift the turbine off...its got to be expensive.

Is this a serious argument? If so, I pity you.

could be talking out of my A*** but i feel they things are not fit and forget.

You said it.

[Vultch]

Well I do talk out of it from time to time...

I am not against green energy... far from it...

But see below....

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...aintenance.php

Ahem ...Frontier says that "when a $1,500 bearing fails unnoticed, it can lead to production loss and revenue loss including an unscheduled replacement of a $100,000 dollar gearbox and a unscheduled crane cost of up to $70,000 to access the failed components.

[adpsimpson]

Well I do talk out it from time to time...

But see below....

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...aintenance.php

Scary - Looks like a job opportunity! I wonder if that's a consequence of politically motivated large grants to install turbines, without the required longer term investment?

[Vultch]

Me too mate...sounds like a profitable enterprise.... I think its a case of scrimping on maintenance to generate big profits...

[Nostromo]

I'm sure there will be some expert somewhere on here ready to shoot me down on this but

Told you so.

How come just cos I start having a rant everyone joins in with comments asking where I get my facts and figures from but then along follow a shed load of post with their fact and figures (un-proven) and that goes unchallenged. Funny how when fact and figures suit the views of others then suddenly, no proof required.
I got my info where i got my info, dont need to varify it and in fact did say not to take my rantting to seriously as i was just letting of steam, and NO TYPPING IN UPPER CASE DOES NOT MAKE THINGS SO JUST EMPHASISES A POINT.
Come on guys, its not that serious. We are all doomed (eventually) and the planet will manage quite well when we're gone so no need to worry about where the energy will come from. There is no rule that says people must prevail. The only worry is who shoots who first when it all goes tits up. After that ist all academic, the bugs will win out.

[adpsimpson]

Told you so.

Guess you were right about that bit then!

It's all in the tone, not exactly what was said, although it doesn't help that you were talking physical nonsense on a forum full of engineers. It makes no sense to say you have to build x wind farms per y to meet our current demand - that would be a rate of growth. And ending it with "proven fact" is just asking for trouble.

It's like saying "My surf burns more MPG than yours per gallon, because it's red, and that was proven by NASA."

ps - Capitals are equivalent to shouting, not emphasis. You'd want bold for emphasis.

[Nostromo]

Yeah point taken.
I watched an in depth programme explaining how we use energy and relating it all to the developments being made by various government agencies to address the problem ranging from wind power to focused lazer power. The "green" alternatives didn't fair well. It was all quite factual with no hidden agender. The programme was introduced by a young proffessor who just wanted to make a programme explaing the issues we are up against. The evidence was fairly compeling.
It just seems obvious to me that we live in a time of the highest world population with the lowest level of resources. I'm not a mathmatician or even an engineer. I'm just a lowly surveyor but things seem clear. In an ever increasing population with ever increasing demands our power requirements will not be satified by everyone erecting a windmill.
Not trying to be contravertial or dismisive of those who obviously have in depth knowledge of technical subjects but I any exactly stupid myself.
We might be intelligent people on this forum but this bloke had a Phd and knew is stuff and just cos I saw it on telly dont make it any less true. I realy had to admire this blokes degree of understanding. It opened my eyes to how severe the energy problem is.