Wind Power. Green and err, Safe?

OffTheBackAdam

Fancy one of these near to you? :shock:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/frischer-wind/2008/02/spektakulares-video-kollaps-einer-windturbine.php

richardast

Up until 18 seconds I was thinking "Yes. Cool."
Now, I'm slightly less sure.

Weird, the way that it just explodes though. If I could read German maybe I would understand why.

richardast

Thankfully, I don't have to.

heavymental

Did anyone read the Guardian on Saturday? The article about James Lovelock was interesting. Basically saying its too late for us to stop global warming. Its all inevitable and building windmills etc is a waste of time. We're all fked in 20 years according to him.

Mithras

My guess is those things aren't supposed to be turned on in wind of that strength!

synchronicity

Yikes! :shock:

I'd pretty much agree with that comment, but it doesn't hurt to try. It's not good when you lose all sense of hope.

The thing with global warming that I've recently discovered is, there are still people about who don't belive in it... just take a look at this thread. I basically just stopped arguing my case with such ignoramuses. *sigh*

heavymental

I haven't given up hope as there's still so much to fight for but it does seem petty, all the tiny projects that the governments bang on about. If you really wanted to make a change the government (of every country on Earth) would have to make some pretty radical changes to our lifestyle. But whats wrong with that? It'll never happen though, we need to spend all our money on 'fighting terror' not useful changes to the worlds lifestyle.

OffTheBackAdam

synchronicity wrote:

Yikes! :shock:

I'd pretty much agree with that comment, but it doesn't hurt to try. It's not good when you lose all sense of hope.

The thing with global warming that I've recently discovered is, there are still people about who don't belive in it... just take a look at this thread. I basically just stopped arguing my case with such ignoramuses. *sigh*

Some very good arguments there put up by the "non-believers' camp", interestingly, the "Believers" aren't putting forwards any hard science to support their case, the sea level graph showing a pretty steady rise since the mid 1850's. (Yes, it is getting like a religious argument, with believers saying that (insert name of diety) exists because we say he/she/it does)
I wonder how much energy is needed to construct & erect one of these giants, compared to the amount they produce over their lifespan (Hopefully longer than that Danish example).
We do need to move away from fossil fuels for power generation, but really nuclear is the only practical means of doing this.
Wind is too variable, unpredictable (So a conventional power station is always needed to be on standby to fill the gap in power) and uneconomic, leaving aside the huge number of turbines needed to produce any meaningful amount of power, I don't like the idea of sticking a tidal barrage across estuaries, that's not going to be good for wildlife, wave power? No one seems to be doing much there, so it can't be too useful. Solar is a non-starter for the UK & the rest of Northern Europe, so what's left?
The EU Parliamnet could do its bit, stop trooping between Brussels & Strasbourg, apparently that's worth 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year!

chronyx

I love the way that explodes like something in a computer game somehow it just rips itself apart, even the pole falls over

hammerite

I think Mithras has hit the nail on the head. There is no way it should be moving that quickly, they usually shut off when the wind is too strong.

The argument for global warming is real though, there hasn't been one quality scientific peer reviewed paper that argues that global warming caused by human actions isn't happening.

We need to improve building standards in this country in line with the standards in some other countries (Germany, Canada and Scandinavian countries). If buildings were air tight (beside designed ventilation), took advantage of natural light, and incidental heat gains we'd have a reasonably low requirement for fuel.

Whilst wind is unreliable as is solar (PV), we could look at things like solar water heating which would cut down the amount of fuel required to heat water and ground source heat pumps which lessens our reliability on gas (whilst heat pumps lower the CO2 output, they currently cost more to run due to electricity used to power them!).

Bronzie

chronyx wrote:

I love the way that explodes like something in a computer game somehow it just rips itself apart, even the pole falls over

If you read the comments on the YouTube vids, apparently the turbine's emergency brake failed. Engineers went to try and sort it out (that's their vehicles parked by the pylon) but realised it was not safe and retired to a distance to film it.

There is also a slo-mo on YouTube that shows one blade tip start to fragment (they are not designed to run at THAT speed), causing catastrophic failure of the entire blade which causes one of the remaining blades to collide with the pylon, chopping it neatly in two!

With regard to the global warming debate and trying to persuade people to change their lifestyles....................well good luck with that. Any of you who have watched "The Woman Who Stops Traffic" series will know that people are loathe to get out of their motors - even to walk the kids to school less than 1/2 mile away, even though walking is actually quicker. Nope............human nature dictates that it's "always someone elses problem". Without strong government intervention (and what government is going to take the sort of drastically unpopular moves that are now really required) to force people to change their lifestyles, all the tinkering around the edges that they are currently doing is just papering over the cracks.

Bronzie

hammerite wrote:

We need to improve building standards in this country in line with the standards in some other countries (Germany, Canada and Scandinavian countries). If buildings were air tight (beside designed ventilation), took advantage of natural light, and incidental heat gains we'd have a reasonably low requirement for fuel.

I agree that standards need improving (and in fact insulation levels for new builds have changed enormously in the last 10 years) but the current government target of "Zero Carbon Homes" by 2016 (that is that not only is ALL space and water heating provided by zero carbon sources, but all electrical power in the house as well) is widely regarded in the industry as being currently unachievable. Even the the most thermally efficient prototype houses being built in the UK can't get anywhere near zero carbon.

Nor does this address the other huge problem of current housing stock with insulation levels that are non-existent. The new HIP scheme with it's energy assessment component (when you sell your house, it will be rated for energy efficiency like a fridge) is I think the governments first step in trying to force people to upgrade their home insulation levels (see above about unpopular moves though). However, many properties can only be upgraded so far without very costly alterations (ie floor insulation) being required.

hammerite

Bronzie wrote:

I agree that standards need improving (and in fact insulation levels for new builds have changed enormously in the last 10 years) but the current government target of "Zero Carbon Homes" by 2016 (that is that not only is ALL space and water heating provided by zero carbon sources, but all electrical power in the house as well) is widely regarded in the industry as being currently unachievable. Even the the most thermally efficient prototype houses being built in the UK can't get anywhere near zero carbon.

Nor does this address the other huge problem of current housing stock with insulation levels that are non-existent. The new HIP scheme with it's energy assessment component (when you sell your house, it will be rated for energy efficiency like a fridge) is I think the governments first step in trying to force people to upgrade their home insulation levels (see above about unpopular moves though). However, many properties can only be upgraded so far without very costly alterations (ie floor insulation) being required.

Yep, the 2016 target is going to be pretty tough to meet. They've estimated at current levels that you need to spend £160k on renewables alone to reach zero carbon for a new build. At current standards I think the key will be off site renewables linked to the development community as opposed to renewables for individual houses. If houses can be built to negate the need of fuel for heating and hot water, then I suppose there will be less of a requirement for renewables.

The EPC for existing houses is interesting as it will start to raise awareness of the efficiency of the building, and provide recommendations for improvement, but there is no requirement to carry out the improvements. Insulating a roof space is easy enough, but try getting someone to insulate a solid wall if they have a nice exterior would be a nightmare!

Bronzie

hammerite wrote:

but there is no requirement to carry out the improvements

................yet!

hammerite

Bronzie wrote:

hammerite wrote:

but there is no requirement to carry out the improvements

................yet!

true! I think if they do enforce improvements it's likely to come in the form of stamp duty breaks or council tax.

NikB

hammerite wrote:

I think Mithras has hit the nail on the head. There is no way it should be moving that quickly, they usually shut off when the wind is too strong.

The argument for global warming is real though, there hasn't been one quality scientific peer reviewed paper that argues that global warming caused by human actions isn't happening.

We need to improve building standards in this country in line with the standards in some other countries (Germany, Canada and Scandinavian countries). If buildings were air tight (beside designed ventilation), took advantage of natural light, and incidental heat gains we'd have a reasonably low requirement for fuel.

Whilst wind is unreliable as is solar (PV), we could look at things like solar water heating which would cut down the amount of fuel required to heat water and ground source heat pumps which lessens our reliability on gas (whilst heat pumps lower the CO2 output, they currently cost more to run due to electricity used to power them!).

I don't think you're right about the being no significant evidence against global warming. It's just not as in the public eye because the government wants to keep control of us to tax us ever more. In fact global temperatures dropped last year by at least 0.5C wiping out 100 years of warming in 1 year according to the Hadley Centre. The most likely reason for this - the current inactivity of the sun. There is no sunspot activity, it's been supposed to start up again but nothing is happening. If that continues then an ice age is a more likely result than global warming.

If anyone actually does their figures and does some proper research the actual amount of CO2 in our atmosphere produced by man is actually a miniscule amount when compared to the amount produced by dead vegetation, animals, volcanoes etc.

knedlicky

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

I wonder how much energy is needed to construct & erect one of these giants, compared to the amount they produce over their lifespan

I seem to remember having once read that one costs £650,000 to build. Its construction costs are probably amortised sooner than the cost of building a nuclear power station, which I think is 15 years.
Different studies about how much it costs to produce one kilowatthour of electricity from various sources (including the initial costs for construction and also the indirect health and environmental impact costs) nearly always come up with the same ranking order - wind is cheapest, then comes nuclear, then other renewables (water, sunlight, biomass, geothermal), all of these close together in cost, then a sizeable jump in cost to gas and then an even bigger jump to oil and coal.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Wind is too variable, unpredictable

A study by Oxford University concluded (I think not unsurprisingly) that "the UK has the best wind resource in Europe" and "the chance of low wind speeds affecting 90% of the country only occur for one hour every five years, whilst the chance of wind turbines shutting down due to very high wind speeds only occurs in around one hour every 10 years".

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Solar is a non-starter for the UK & the rest of Northern Europe

Not really true - everywhere south of a line Brighton-Limerick gets enough sunshine. In fact, everywhere south of a line Lincoln-Galway and most coastal strips farther north get enough light to make solar energy a significant contributor (it doesn't have to be bright sunshine).

Nuggs

NikB wrote:

I don't think you're right about the being no significant evidence against global warming. It's just not as in the public eye because the government wants to keep control of us to tax us ever more. In fact global temperatures dropped last year by at least 0.5C wiping out 100 years of warming in 1 year according to the Hadley Centre. The most likely reason for this - the current inactivity of the sun. There is no sunspot activity, it's been supposed to start up again but nothing is happening. If that continues then an ice age is a more likely result than global warming.

If anyone actually does their figures and does some proper research the actual amount of CO2 in our atmosphere produced by man is actually a miniscule amount when compared to the amount produced by dead vegetation, animals, volcanoes etc.

I'm with you on that one.

The world is heating up, but there's sod all we can do about it. It's been hotter before and in the 70s there was concern that we were heading for another ice age. Al Gore is like the modern day King Kanute.

CO2 seems to be the gas of choice as it is the product of industry. Arguments for MMGW completely sidestep the fact that gasses such as N2O are exponentially more 'warming' than N20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide). The difference is that man produces hardly any Nitrous Oxide, when compared with volcanos, cows and dead plants (which are, incidentally, very difficult to tax).

The whole MMGW debate has become an opportunity for governments to tax both industry and the individual. It has also allowed the green movement (who 10 years ago we were laughing at for trying to destory the economy while bouncing cross-legged on their beds), along with the class war/anti-globalisation movements to gain disproportionate policital leverage.

I completely believe that we should act responsibly in our husbandy of the Earth and its resources. However, I do not want some ill-informed long-haried prick telling me how to live my life and taxing me for the pleasure.

NikB

I completely believe that we should act responsibly in our husbandy of the Earth and its resources. However, I do not want some ill-informed long-haried prick telling me how to live my life and taxing me for the pleasure.

Agreed, I'm all for a common sense approach to recycling and reducing waste etc, but I refuse to beat myself half to death about my carbon footprint because someone coined a term and all the politicians jumped on it.
Everything I've seen about the CO2 argument is based on a very short timespan. Geological records do not show things so clearly despite what many would have us believe.

Bronzie

Whether you buy the global warming argument or not, there's no escaping the fact that fossil fuels are a limited resource and their costs are rising sharply at present. At some point in the future natural gas (which provides the vast majority of the UK's domestic heating) will get to a price that most people can no longer afford. That's assuming that we don't fall out with the Ruskies in the meantime and they turn off the tap.

Does it not therefore make sense to do the most we can now to prolong these sources of energy until some bright spark can sort nuclear fussion out?

NikB

It sure does, I don't think anyone would argue with that. The argument comes from so called 'green' taxes which are just another way of extorting money from the masses. I'm not a fan of wind power as I feel they are largely unsightly and places in areas of natural beauty. They are also potentially devastating to local bird populations. The turbines themselves are also fairly inefficient - making 33% at best. Nuclear is potentially risky but it's been fairly safe so far at least in the UK.

Stopping the human population expanding at an exponential rate would be better for the planet than taxing each of us this way.

hammerite

NikB wrote:

It sure does, I don't think anyone would argue with that. The argument comes from so called 'green' taxes which are just another way of extorting money from the masses.

You could call it a green tax, or you could just call it a tax to try and prolong the fossil fuel supplies we do have.

If you become more efficient you generally save money (i.e. fuel bills) but also are most likely to benefit from not being taxed for being inefficient.

Richrd2205

NikB
Your argument is fascinating & would make sense except for the fact that a fundamental precept is utter nonsense. The parliamentary consensus in the UK for 30+ years is in favour of reducing taxes & given that we only accept them trying to affect our behaviour by altering taxation (anything else would be a "nanny state," no?), arguing about trying to affect our behaviour by raising taxation is, at best, a bit stupid This kind of makes the rest of your argument redundant, doesn't it?

Can I just pull a couple of other highlights from your post up?

They are also potentially devastating to local bird populations

Good,let's apply the lessons from one particularly stupid proposal to all proposals, that wouldn't be a straw man argument. would it?

The turbines themselves are also fairly inefficient - making 33% at best.

Where's this figure from BTW & WTF is the problem with the waste? Can you explain to me the negative impact of wasting a free resource, cos I'm struggling to get my head round that? Oh, & you forgot to mention the figures for other power generation in the UK. Go on, quote it, including the older stations, just to make your argument really powerful...

The argument comes from so called 'green' taxes which are just another way of extorting money from the masses

Cos if I say "the masses" it validates my argument, no? Taxing cars with 320kg/km CO2 will only affect those who chose to be taxed, shall we call it a tax on the stupid, financially comfortable & arrogant? That's hardly "the masses" is it? I earn average wage & haven't been adversely affected by these taxes, how is that? (I might add that friends on £80k pa with huge cars are, but I'm not sure if they're who you mean by the masses)

I'm stopping here, since this post is getting a bit long. Can I suggest getting your info from somewhere other than the red tops? Can you also offer me an argument as to why population reduction shouldn't start in the UK?

jezwold

Basically because its possible to see evidence that shows that the climate has always been unstable and has been wildly fluctuating as far back as you care to look, going back thousand of millions of years. The idea that any of mankind's activities has any measurable effect of the climate is complete bollocks, its completely unprovable and because there is no way that the claims that environmental activists make can be proved or disproved you cannot even make the claim that climate change cause by pollution is a legitimate theory.
Thje people who shout about pollution destroying the Earth are just showing their basic lack of understanding of the issues, the Earth has been through far more disastrous events than the arrival of mankind and has quite happily kept going. If mankind does end up wiping itself out then I am sure that the Earth will just keep on plodding along until the next species comes along and the whole thing starts all over again.

heavymental

jezwold wrote:

Thje people who shout about pollution destroying the Earth are just showing their basic lack of understanding of the issues, the Earth has been through far more disastrous events than the arrival of mankind and has quite happily kept going. If mankind does end up wiping itself out then I am sure that the Earth will just keep on plodding along until the next species comes along and the whole thing starts all over again.

Well, that depends if you're happy to see a planet with no biodiversity just spinning its way through space until we all eventually die. Which, unless a catastrophic event happens is probably not going to happen. We'd just live in a cycle of civil war, perched on the remaining habitable patches of land. The plants and animals (ourselves included) on Earth are the result of millions of years of evolution. As far as we know this is the only planet in the universe that supports significant life forms of such variety. I think its universally considered wrong for us to selfishly destroy it all because we weren't prepared to make sacrifices. Saying "the Earth will keep going regardless" seems a bit pointless. Its like saying "hey well, I can sht all over the toilet seat if I want and it still keeps working. Hey, I even pssed in the cistern the other day and it still flushes fine". Doesn't make it a nice place to be.

heavymental

Just to add, the environmentalists have been banging on about Carbon for ages but typically, once it becomes mainstream it turns into a totally consumer friendly issue. We are told to turn off lights and cut down car journeys but that kind of thing is a tiny contribution compared to what needs to be done.

Its the same with plastic bags. The Mail has, admirably, led a campaign against the use of plastic bags but unfortunately the worldwide use of plastics means its a fairly insignificant solution to a huge problem. Look at the piles of plastic floating around in the sea or blowing around the countryside in countries that have no means of dealing with the waste.

Course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't take part in these ideas when they come along but unfortunately, it needs governments to take massive steps that are unlikely to happen for all kinds of economic and political reasons.

OffTheBackAdam

This makes interesting reading.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
I'm in complete agreement with conserving dwindling fossil fuel resources. As for the problems with plastics & other items of litter, it takes some idle cnut to throw it away in the first place, rather than bin/recycle it. A we don't have to look at those foreigners to see a countryside covered in rubbish, a trip along any major road in the UK will do that. :roll:
Wind power being inefficient is well known, the ball park figure of one of these windmills being useful for only 1/3rd of the time is widely quoted, whether it's 25 or 75% isn't the issue, it's the fact that there needs to be a conventional source of power ready to pick up the slack and that means having a coal/oil/gas fired station ticking away, still consuming appreciable amounts of fuel thus producing appreciable amount of CO2.
Oh, here's a photo of a weather station at a university in Tuscon.

:shock: