Wind Farms.

[ExigeEvan]

First of all, lets try not to make this a renenewable energy thread, lets please focus on wind farms.

BACKGROUND
Recentley, there's been alot of talk in the local press about plans for a 'ring of steel' around Swansea. Simpy put, they want to have several wind farms on the hills around Swansea. This has, quite obviousley, been met with alot of opposition.

For
They provide 'clean' energy.
They reduce C02 emmisions.
They don't require vast levels of maintenance (AFAIK)
There are no harmful waste products (*Cough* Nuclear)

Against
They 'desecrate' beautiful hillside.
They are noisy.
They kill birds.
They destroy television signals.
They aren't a reliable source of energy.
They produce little amounds of energy.


What I think
I like them. I actually think they're quite beautiful, thought alot of people disagree. They aren't that noisy, I actually stayed on a caravan site about a mile from them and all you could hear was a faint woosh in the night. No worse than passing traffic. But yes, they do destroy the TV signal

So, Wind turbines, yay or nay? Or, yay, just not in my back garden.

 

[Tornado]

Against
They 'desecrate' beautiful hillside.

With how cool they look.

They are noisy.

Yep, as noisy as the wind. So let's stop the wind.

They kill birds.

Dick Cheney shooting men in the face kills more birds than windmills do each year*






*Obviously not a real fact. But not far short.

They destroy television signals.

So do smokestacks, nuclear reactors and power lines, last time I checked.

They aren't a reliable source of energy.

Niether will fossil fuels be in 50-60 years.

They produce little amounds of energy.

Quite technically, so do fossil fuels and natural gas.

 

[Dave A]

I think windfarms are in gerenal a good thing though they should be located away from our towns and villages and all be put in Wales. Yay. No but seriously they should be carefully positioned not just for maximum power generation but also away from villages and towns. For the poll I'm voting yay because they are clean and don't run on exhaustable energy

 

[Danoff]

Wind farms are not efficient sources of energy, they're huge, expensive, and require plenty of maintenance. I prefer solar (especially because its scalable) - though nuclear is clearly the way to go.

Wind farms 👎

 

[ExigeEvan]

With how cool they look.

I think they look awsome.

Yep, as noisy as the wind. So let's stop the wind.

The wind doesn't make noise by itself. It needs trees, buildings etc.

Dick Cheney shooting men in the face kills more birds than windmills do each year*

*Obviously not a real fact. But not far short.

That was a great point....

So do smokestacks, nuclear reactors and power lines, last time I checked.

I have a friend that lives right next to a power line. He has no problem. And smokestacks and nuclear reactors are rarely close to houses.

Niether will fossil fuels be in 50-60 years.

No, but Nuclear energy will be.

Quite technically, so do fossil fuels and natural gas.

Not really. Fossil fuels are quite effective ways of creating energy, hence why they are so popular.

Wind farms are not efficient sources of energy, they're huge, expensive, and require plenty of maintenance. I prefer solar (especially because its scalable) - though nuclear is clearly the way to go.

Wind farms

I saw your thread on solar energy when I was searching.

 

[Sage]

We used to have a wind turbine (to supplement the solar power and generator). It sucked ass. The generator part within the turbine head broke, twice – it was too delicate to withstand the Santa Ana winds that we have. And it barely made any power when it was working – solar is way way way way way more efficient (we can easily run our entire house off of eight panels).

I agree that architecturally they’re beautiful, but it’d be much more efficient (and reliable) to use that same square footage for solar panels instead.

[edit]: I just realized how absurd it is that we used to have a wind turbine. Has anybody else on GTP had that experience?

 

[vladimir]

there is a village in souther germany that is solely powerd by a really tiny hydroelectric power plant in the nearby creek, one or two windmills, some solar collectors on farmer's barns and a biomass/gas whatever plant. i don't know its name so i can't check how many inhabitants it has, but it was neither particularily small nor large as far as i remember and produces more than it needs.

thats the way to go i think because putting hundreds of them into one place in those windfarms won't appeal to many people and you loose energy when you transport it.

with a combination of various sources though, lots of villages and smaller towns and thus large parts of a nation can be made independent from nuclear power, natural gas or oil. maybe on a calm day the mills won't make much power, but then the solar cells do and when its stormy the mills do instead of the cells...

 

[daan]

solar is way way way way way more efficient (we can easily run our entire house off of eight panels).

Yeah, right. Solar energy for Scotland and Wales? Wind power works a lot better here. If only we could harness the power of rain...

 

[Tornado]

I have a friend that lives right next to a power line. He has no problem. And smokestacks and nuclear reactors are rarely close to houses.

I was talking LOS satelite dishes.

No, but Nuclear energy will be.

That is true, but as great as Nuclear is there are so many inherent dangers that simply don't apply to wind energy.

]Not really. Fossil fuels are quite effective ways of creating energy, hence why they are so popular.

But it is grossly inefficient, especially in things requiring more refined fuel. Hydrogen is theoretically better, but then again it is even more so inefficient due to it's creation process.

Wind farms are not efficient sources of energy, they're huge, expensive, and require plenty of maintenance.

And Nuclear and Solar do not require all of those things, if not more (barring possibly size, but see my next point)? Nuclear requires crazy amount of personnel, and typical photovoltaic panels not only are very fragile, but are also very expensive to replace.

I prefer solar (especially because its scalable)

So is wind energy. You do not have to have a windmill that is 30 stories, and either way it will still take up less than a typical solar cell (abnd nuclear plant, though I realise that a typical windmill makes a fraction of what a full nuclear plant makes) because of how solar cells have to ususally be mounted (in more-or-less horizontal positions). And wind energy can be combined with solar energy anyways.
​

 

[Danoff]

there is a village in souther germany that is solely powerd by a really tiny hydroelectric power plant in the nearby creek...

That's a good point, hydroelectric is a great alternative.

 

[Danoff]

And Nuclear and Solar do not require all of those things, if not more (barring possibly size, but see my next point)? Nuclear requires crazy amount of personnel, and typical photovoltaic panels not only are very fragile, but are also very expensive to replace.

Price/Watt is significantly lower with Nuclear.

So is wind energy. You do not have to have a windmill that is 30 stories, and either way it will still take up less than a typical solar cell (abnd nuclear plant, though I realise that a typical windmill makes a fraction of what a full nuclear plant makes) because of how solar cells have to ususally be mounted (in more-or-less horizontal positions). And wind energy can be combined with solar energy anyways.
​

Wind energy isn't a viable alternative for individual homes. Solar, on the otherhand, can scale down to individual households.

 

[Sage]

^--- What he said. Like I mentioned, our wind turbine, when working, made a nominal amount of power; on the other hand, we can easily power our entire house from solar, and it doesn’t require as large of an array as you’d think (there’s always roof-mounting, anyways).

Yeah, right. Solar energy for Scotland and Wales? Wind power works a lot better here. If only we could harness the power of rain...

… or you could move somewhere where the weather isn’t so miserable.

 

[vladimir]

That's a good point, hydroelectric is a great alternative.

and while we're disturbing the force (,) i agree that for the amounts of power we need there is no real alternative to nuclear power. in order to get the rural parts independent other means can be used depending on the local environment, but to power our large cities we need nuclear power. as far as i'm aware its the cleanest and safest way to produce large amounts of electricity.

 

[Danoff]

^^^
👍

 

[Dave A]

Safe as long as it's not Homer Simpson running the plant. Nuclear power is by far the most effective that I'm aware of.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, right. Solar energy for Scotland and Wales? Wind power works a lot better here. If only we could harness the power of rain...

...or liver-power. Ya bunch of drunks.

Personally, I think we should just wind farm the hell out of all of our desert space. As for the UK... you guys could always paint your windmills the color of their surroundings. Camoflavj.

 

[red70mach1]

Okay in a vast remote area not in suburban areas.

 

[FormulaGT]

I vote 'yay'. I don't know Swansea, but in Australia there are many windfarms, and we generally think that they are worth whatever minor negatives that may come along with them.

FormulaGT

 

[Sureboss]

Tbh, if they do kill birds it's the birds faults, it's not as though Birds won't see or hear them.

It requires alot of them to get enough energy to make it a viable source. It'll never make up more than 15% of a countries energy sources.

 

[TheCracker]

I think we'll come to a time where we need whatever renewable energy we can get our hands on. Wind farms will get more efficiant, and will be used more frequently. I recently travelled through the Netherlands, on my way to Belgium, where they have loads of wind farms - i think they are quite elegant 👍 I don't know if i'd like to live near to one mind. Although i don't think i'd like to live near any powerstation. Nuclear, unpopular as it seems to be, is the way forward 👍

 

[DQuaN]

Personally, I think we should just wind farm the hell out of all of our desert space.

Do you not think it would be more effective to put solar panels in the desert?

Wind turbines should go in the north sea or irish sea, where they are out of the way and get plenty of wind.

 

[G.T]

They don't require vast levels of maintenance (AFAIK)

They aren't a reliable source of energy.

Doesn't that contradict itself a little bit? It doesn't need much maintenance, yet isn't that reliable.

They kill birds.

I'd like to know how many birds they actually kill. 2? Maybe 3? They'll soon learn to not go near them - a bit like not flying in front of your moving car on the motorway...

They destroy television signals.

Is that for Digital TV or Analouge? In a few years almost everyone would have switched to Digital anyway (in the UK), so that shouldn't be an issue. Unless it destroys Digital signals, too.

Plus, are they expensive to produce? Surely to have enough of them to power a city would be more expensive than making a Nuclear Plant, maybe even an Solar one.

So from me, a nay. They're ugly and seem to be quite unefficient.

 

[Der Alta]

I am absolutely in favor of them. I'm also a big fan of Solar Power.

I'm not a big fan of TV in general, as most of it is crap. What little I do manage to watch simply reinforces the fact that I never want to pay for Cable or a satellite.

While I have no desire to give up my car and move up into the mountains, I definately see a desire for Solar and Wind generated energy. I'd love to install a slew of panels on my roof and my garage.

I was so bent when the locals shot down the wind far off Cape Cod. The idiots would rather possibly save a few fish, than reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

I took a trip to Germany a few years ago and got to see a wind far up close. The beauty of seeing all these giant, silent machines working off the wind was awe inspiring.

 

[Boundary Layer]

I simply don't understand the argument people keep putting up about how they destroy scenery and countryside.
Besides solar (which I'm also in favour of) name a name a power source that doesn't?

Hydro-electric dams flood huge expanses of land, turn rivers to puddles during dry spells, and lead to high mercury concentrations in fish that biomagnifies through the food chain.

Large scale coal or natural gas firing power plants are massive structures that stand out on the landscape far more than a row of fans do, they create a pile of excess heat, they pollute the environment with noxious emissions and greenhouse gases and with wastewater.

Going nuclear, while considerably cleaner than burning fossil fuels, is customarily viewed as unsafe, you have to deal with the waste and wastewater, they generate huge amounts of heat, and again... nuclear plants are massive structures that are far uglier than windfarms.



I have to agree with TheCracker's comments from earlier - we should be using any/every renewable resource we can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, etc, etc. Sureshots argument about them never providing for more than 15% of energy demands makes no difference (regardless of if the figures are true or not) - that's still 15% that doesn't have to be supplied by dirtier means.

Manitoba Hydro (where I worked as an engineering student last summer) recently began the installation of a windfarm somewheres south of Winnipeg. In the next 10 years their aim is to generate 1000MW of power in the province by wind energy - to put this in perspective, 1000MW is roughly the output of one of the largest hydroelectric dams in the province (at Kettle, Longspruce, or Limestone). This 1000MW would increase potential output by almost 20%. The power we generate here is sold as far south as Kentucky and as far east as Virginia.

btw - Manitoba Hydro is the largest HVDC transmission system in the world, so this isn't some small utility with limited output we're talking about.

There's more about this, and some general wind energy facts here:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2004/11/2004-11-24-03.html

 

[TheCracker]

Wiki has a pretty comprehensive page on the subject too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

 

[ExigeEvan]

Doesn't that contradict itself a little bit? It doesn't need much maintenance, yet isn't that reliable.

I've read before that Wind Turbines need to turn at a certain RPM to create electricity. Untill they do so, they are just looking pretty, or not, but despite this they're still wearing away at their mechanisms.

I'd like to know how many birds they actually kill. 2? Maybe 3? They'll soon learn to not go near them - a bit like not flying in front of your moving car on the motorway...

How does a dead bird learn from it's mistakes I've known loads of birds to fly in front of cars, or even not move for cars. And from my experience it's usually the person that yields first.

Is that for Digital TV or Analouge? In a few years almost everyone would have switched to Digital anyway (in the UK), so that shouldn't be an issue. Unless it destroys Digital signals, too.

I believe it would deteriate the signal for both. However, for Digital it's a game of chance. If the signal is slightly deteriated the signal is by nature compensated for (Do you know how didgital signals work?). But if it's too bad you will loose the signal altogether. Unliek where analogue where it'll just deteriate gradually. The answer is ofcourse, NTL

Plus, are they expensive to produce? Surely to have enough of them to power a city would be more expensive than making a Nuclear Plant, maybe even an Solar one.

Nuclear power is even more of a problem to get approved. Plus it require alot of long term investment. Especially when decommisioning. Solar power just requires ALOT of land. Lots and lots and lots.


I think one of the best solutions is tidal energy. What is more predictable than the tides? Plus it is certainly ideal for the south west of England and South Wales as the Bristol Channel has the second highest tidal range in the world (Behind the Bay of Fundy, Canada).

[EDIT] Yeah yeah, I know

First of all, lets try not to make this a renenewable energy thread, lets please focus on wind farms.

 

[Boundary Layer]

I've read before that Wind Turbines need to turn at a certain RPM to create electricity. Untill they do so, they are just looking pretty, or not, but despite this they're still wearing away at their mechanisms.

They don't have to be going that fast. Most have gearboxes to gear up or gear down the input to the generator based on prop speed to make more on relatively calm days, and to protect the generators on windier days.

 

[Famine]

The answer is ofcourse, NTL

If NTL is the answer, the question must be bloody stupid.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yeah, that's true. I checed back at the letter I saw and someone commented how the neccesary speed was actually quite low, at 3-4 m/s.

[EDIT]

If NTL is the answer, the question must be bloody stupid.

What's wrong with NTL!? Okay, their TV don't compare with Sky, but it isn't that bad.

 

[niky]

+1 on tidal or wave energy. I've seen a proposal that uses very cheap generators... simply plastic barrels anchored to the sea floor (where it's shallow, that is), that bob up and down, with the motion translated to an electric charge generated between a permanent magnet mounted inside the plastic barrel, and a coil mounted on the anchor.

Estimates were a cost of just a few thousand dollars per barrel, and a grid of these floating offshore could power a small city, without posing much of a navigational danger to boats (they're plastic, they'll just bounce off).

Only expensive part would be the equipment to collect the electricity, but that's not a big issue, now, is it?

And by absorbing wave energy, you preserve fragile coastlines... yay!