Wind turbines get bigger and bigger

[JourneymanParticipant @journeyman]

Gas Plasma Waste Recycling is the way to go. Solves two problems at once, gets rid of garbage and generates electricity. I don't think they have all the bugs out of the system yet but definitely looks promising.

John

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Ady1 on 03/04/2018 09:21:05:

LM Wind Power is owned by global engineering firm General Electric (GE), which announced in March that it hopes to develop a giant 12MW (megawatt) wind turbine by the year 2020.

That's just about the capacity of my local power station in London when I was a kid. Even the Luftwaffe wouldn't bomb it because it was more use as a landmark on their way out.

[larry PhelanParticipant @larryphelan54019]

Some one there mentioned Sellafield ! no need to ask about that kip.That place has been leaking since the day it was built by "Experts",who knew it all [or so they liked to pretend ] How many of those same "Experts" or their families live anywhere near that dump,and that,s all it is. It,s still leaking like a sieve.

It is no coincidence that the area of Irish coast directly opposite Sellifield has the highest cancer rate in all Ireland.

I hate to even think what is in the sea. I no longer swim in the Irish Sea,as I did years ago,nor do I eat anything from it. The sad fact is that these "Experts" know as much about what they are messing with as my dogs know about the Internet. Where are all these "Experts" now,the same ones who were telling us how "safe" Sellifield was [when it was known by another name ] ?

Who was it who said "What,s in a name ? S—t by any other name smells just a s bad "

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Tim S has hit the real problem for our beautiful blue planet. too many feet on the rock, then I am sure the solution will surely follow. War, pestilance and starvation will seal its fate.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Bear in mind that not one single commercial reactor has yet been decommissioned yet in the UK. Rather helpfully (to the nuclear industry), the UK government removed the obligation to clean up later in a futile attempt to try to make nuclear power vaguely viable as a pretend business. There is nowhere to bury the stuff, so when the existing reactors ARE finally decommissioned, it will involve them remaining where they are, entombed in concrete with their guts stored nearby like some macabre but deadly modern day Egyptian mummy.

Murray

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Jon Gibbs on 03/04/2018 17:10:36:

Posted by Clive Hartland on 03/04/2018 16:30:39:

The ongoing research into cold fusion is possibly an answer but even then basic costs are prohibitive and they seem to be going nowhere.

More research and money is needed before the world writes off Fusion power [and it's not likely to be cold IMHO]… **LINK**

…but £86M, really? I ask you. Just over 0.01% of UK Government Expenditure. At that rate it's no wonder the research seems to be going nowhere.

The UK is actually leading the field in Fusion reactor technology.

Neil

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

Vestas turbine blade leaving Cowes

Edited By Bob Brown 1 on 03/04/2018 19:49:58

[Cyril BonnettParticipant @cyrilbonnett24790]

Generating energy from turbines relies on our carbon based industries, can anyone point to any turbine that has been planted around or on the British Isles that hasn't relied on the massive amounts of carbon based energy from planning to commissioning?

Then comes decommissioning, who pays the consumer and taxpayer.

[JohnFParticipant @johnf59703]

"So, the answer is a barrage where turbines power up while filling and also while emptying. All feasible and there are several suitable bays and areas for such enterprises. Wave power, this sufferes from sea/wave action and seems to also have died down now.

Clive"

There is a great danger of an environmental catastrophe with sea barrages, if they can be constructed so that the generating does not impede the flow in either direction then they would be fine. But if not the damage to bird life would be a disaster — Morecambe bay has several times been suggested for this type of system but fortunately has been quashed ! There are some 40K waders who rely on the time between tides to feed, if this time was curtailed by storing the water then releasing it when WE need energy they would perish. It was said they would just move – really – where to ? there is no replacement for their food source. That's not to say we cannot use this type of system but it is essential that it does not impact on our companions on this planet, in this case the wading birds together with the migratory fish.

Kwil, I agree there are far too many of us and our species is expanding at an alarming rate, I too have said for a long time that Mother Nature will come along and sort us out !

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

I've always wondered why we haven't exploited water power to a greater degree, it kicked off the industrial revolution after all.

How many gallons of water, falling a few feet, does it take to extract a few kw's of energy?

I once had a chat with a chap who's house overlooks Belpers North Mill, his has the best view & he often finds TV crews set up on his drive. I was lamenting that all that machinery was once powered by nothing but water dropping a few feet & was surprised to learn that turbines installed a few years ago generate 350kw's today.

And you would struggle to find any evidence they were there, both visually & environmentally.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by Mick Charity on 03/04/2018 23:39:

….

How many gallons of water, falling a few feet, does it take to extract a few kw's of energy?

…..

Easy to work out.

mgh is the potential energy of the water before its fall.

Better to use internationally accepted SI units rather than old, mostly out of date units.

m = mass, g = gravitational field strength and h = vertical height of fall.

Rate of flow, not simple volume, is required to provide a result as power (kW is a rate of doing work)

The efficiency of the energy conversion must also be taken into account, but should be above 50% for most installations – even the smaller ones, but will depend on the turbine and generator type/design.

There are ‘run of river’ installations as well as extraction and return. Every installation requires individual assessment, really.

The biggest impdiment to installation of these systems is the beuocracy and licensing to actually use the water – they want paying to use the water!

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Posted by Tim Stevens on 03/04/2018 15:39:05:

It is an interesting experience to see how these big blades are delivered. Often to the tops of hills (of course) in country not well served by main roads or even two-lane roads. Trees are felled, telephones un-wired, traffic diverted (or just stopped) – but let's hope that it does actually save the planet.

No-one in high places seems to realised – yet – that increasing increases (yes) in the population means that we are going to run out ever quicker. The question is – what will run out first? Clean Air, drinking water, places for housing, places for power stations, materials such as copper, lithium, neodymium, …

But I expect it will be OK until I've gone, so what do I (or the Pope) care?

Cheers, Tim

My bet is for methane releases from Siberian permafrost and associated GW impacts.

Process have already started and nothing on Earth including abandoning FF from tommorow can stop it.

Mind you, if the concrete and steel used in construction of windmills, road network, buildings etc is to be made only with aid of renewables, eg electric heating of raw materials for concrete and electrolysis and electric furnaces for steel – civilization would end within few decades – time necessary for existing infrastructure to crumble.

Costs of "green" concrete and steel would be prohibitive.

Btw I also expect to either die or be very old before significant peak resources and habitabilty issues became a prominent concern. This is a cup of tea for our grandchildren to drink.

Martin

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Posted by not done it yet

There are ‘run of river’ installations as well as extraction and return. Every installation requires individual assessment, really.

The biggest impdiment to installation of these systems is the beuocracy and licensing to actually use the water – they want paying to use the water!

There are legitimate concerns for river wildlife. Fish migration is for example affected between many other issues like formation of anoxic zones (and, no, passages for fish around water PP are not enough to address it).

Regarding payments for using water – water mill drinking water out of river and sending it to abyss would be rather exotic entity.

Martin

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 03/04/2018

The UK is actually leading the field in Fusion reactor technology.

Neil

It will do so for next 40 years before projects are finally abandoned due to a lack of materials capable to withstand 14 MeV neutrons for worthwhile periods of time.

Martin

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Cyril Bonnett on 03/04/2018 20:18:10:

Generating energy from turbines relies on our carbon based industries, can anyone point to any turbine that has been planted around or on the British Isles that hasn't relied on the massive amounts of carbon based energy from planning to commissioning?

Then comes decommissioning, who pays the consumer and taxpayer.

A recent study in Scotland showed a 'carbon payback' time for wind turbines of 5 to 12 months, calculated as how long it has to operate to offset the carbon cost of construction and operation.

As the amount of oil/coal/gas in the energy mix reduces this period will increase up to 2030, but still be less than the life of a turbine.

Naturally if we ever get rid of carbon-based fuels, wind turbines will then effectively have a net carbon cost, but it will be much smaller than alternative modes of generation.

[Roger BParticipant @rogerb61624]

John Gibbs’ link has some useful figures. The capital cost for offshore wind is around £3000/kw. If we would like to install an equivalent to Hinkley Point C power station with an output of 3.2Gw the capital cost would be £9.6 Billion. Looks better than ~£30 Billion for Hinkley point but the load factor for offshore wind is around 1/3 so we need 3 times as many turbines which puts the cost up to £28.8 Billion. Still not bad but the wind turbines have an anticipated life span of 20 years and Hinkley Point C has an anticipated life of 60 years. To produce 3.2Gw for 60 years using offshore wind would require a capital investment of £86 Billion rather than around £30 Billion for nuclear. This does not take into account the cost of alternative generation or storage systems for when the wind doesn’t blow. Where would I put my money?

The second problem here is the anticipated service lives. Nuclear power plants have easily exceeded 40 years service life and continue to be granted life extensions. Wind power and especially offshore wind has a poor track record.

**LINK**

**LINK**

Best regards

Roger

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Posted by Vic on 03/04/2018 17:22:00:

China and India are both building Thorium reactors.

**LINK**

From what I read some time back they are cheaper to build, safer to operate and produce less waste.

So why they are not around?

Martin

[Roger BParticipant @rogerb61624]

Larry,

Which experts are which? There are some who actually know what they are talking about and some scaremongers who just make things up.

George Monbiot who is deep Green Left discovered for himself that the ‘luminaries’ of the anti-nuclear movement are just making most of it up and can offer no evidence for their claims. These are his experiences with Chris Busby and Helen Caldicott:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/

**LINK**

Busby started out with good intentions investigating the childhood leukaemia cluster at Windscale/Sellafield but when he found the radiation levels were not sufficient to be the cause he left the scientific way and started making things up to back up his beliefs. If Sellafield/radiation was the cause the leukaemia cluster would still be there, it isn’t.

Others are now starting to take on this scaremongering, one example is Mothers for Nuclear

**LINK**

They also realised that most of the anti –nuclear information was rubbish and have started trying to add some reality.

Best regards

Roger

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 04/04/2018 08:27:09:

Naturally if we ever get rid of carbon-based fuels, wind turbines will then effectively have a net carbon cost, but it will be much smaller than alternative modes of generation.

I'm not sure this is right Neil.

The carbon cost comes about because of the power necessary in creating the materials and in construction was generated using fossil fuels. If we have got rid of carbon-based fuels then there will, by definition, be no carbon cost in materials or manufacture.

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Posted by Martin Dowing on 04/04/2018 08:31:40:

Posted by Vic on 03/04/2018 17:22:00:

China and India are both building Thorium reactors.

**LINK**

From what I read some time back they are cheaper to build, safer to operate and produce less waste.

So why they are not around?

Martin

The short answer is that the world post-WWII wanted Plutonium for nuclear weapons which comes from U238 rather than Th232/U233.

It's not trivial and there needs to be REAL money spent on research of these alternative sources before you'll see any reactors.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

I went to a lecture once that showed that there was a good correlation between leukemia clusters and military installations. The lecturer then pointed out that the military installations were all iron age forts.

Rod

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Repeat after me… correlation does not equate to causation

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Jon Gibbs on 04/04/2018 08:59:56:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 04/04/2018 08:27:09:

Naturally if we ever get rid of carbon-based fuels, wind turbines will then effectively have a net carbon cost, but it will be much smaller than alternative modes of generation.

I'm not sure this is right Neil.

The carbon cost comes about because of the power necessary in creating the materials and in construction was generated using fossil fuels. If we have got rid of carbon-based fuels then there will, by definition, be no carbon cost in materials or manufacture.

No, there is still a carbon cost to things like cement making regardless of how you source the power, because of the chemistry involved. Plus there are all the composites that go into construction etc.

[Jon GibbsParticipant @jongibbs59756]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 04/04/2018 11:13:14:

No, there is still a carbon cost to things like cement making regardless of how you source the power, because of the chemistry involved. Plus there are all the composites that go into construction etc.

You're right about cement – Dooohhh Sorry.

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Surely the carbon (dioxide) goes straight back in to the cement over the next 25 or so years as the concrete sets and continues gaining strength? .

Opinions are like arseholes. everyone's got one and for the most part they smell a bit…

For me, I hope to live long enough to see ITER show a positive power flow. I just turned 60 so I probably won't.

[Author]

Posts