UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power risk

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It not just win turbines, but also wave power (like the one that has been suggested on the river Seven), it we had a lot more Wind and Wave turbines, combine that with biomass and it would be enough to reduce our dependency towards fossil fuels

Also note, there is also carbon capture and clean coal

what's happened to your idea of opening all the pits back up

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by martyh

what's happened to your idea of opening all the pits back up

We could do that as well, as long as it involved carbon capture and clean coal

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

With the locations used for wind turbines, it is very rare that there is no wind. Also they usually generate more than is needed to allow for any drops at one site.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

With the locations used for wind turbines, it is very rare that there is no wind. Also they usually generate more than is needed to allow for any drops at one site.

Ironicaly they will always be suceptible to wind though ,they work between speeds of 10-30 mph when th ewind gets upto 40-50 mph they have to shut down requiring back up stations to generate for them

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Ironicaly they will always be suceptible to wind though ,they work between speeds of 10-30 mph when th ewind gets upto 40-50 mph they have to shut down requiring back up stations to generate for them

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

It is the case ,that's why in medium to high winds you will never see a wind turbine turning .It's logical realy because if you think about the speed that the gears and generator inside the nacelle will be turning with a max speed of 30mph wind speed they would just burn out ,and then think about the g force at the tips of the blades they would tear apart

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow

How strong does the wind have to blow for the wind turbines to work?

Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down. For more information, see the BWEA factsheet on wind energy technology.

There's a interesting report here about accidents involving wind turbines one of the biggest problems is blade failure.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

Cut-out speed is typically 55mph, apparently ...

http://www.wind-power-program.com/tu...cteristics.htm

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Not everybody agrees.

The thing to understand about Green policy is that it is essentially anti-development. They moan about renewables as much as they moan about fossils because renewables still allow the possibility of a continuing increase in energy consumption and economic output. I wouldn't pay an excessive amount of attention to them. Society has always had luddites and always will.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

It is the case ,that's why in medium to high winds you will never see a wind turbine turning .It's logical realy because if you think about the speed that the gears and generator inside the nacelle will be turning with a max speed of 30mph wind speed they would just burn out ,and then think about the g force at the tips of the blades they would tear apart

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow






There's a interesting report here about accidents involving wind turbines one of the biggest problems is blade failure.

To tell you the truth I don't know. Maybe that report is talking about early models, because I've seen some turning in very high winds.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If you're having to ship in biomass material from the other side of the Atlantic for a mere 100MW power station, how much energy is actually being saved.

From Renewable Energy Foundation:-
Where is the missing 98.4% supposed to come from?
If the wind drops even for a few seconds or minutes, you cannot suddenly start up generating capacity elsewhere, even if it was available.

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

You know, about 3,000 years ago the elites of the ancient societies of the Middle East were engaged in a strikingly similar discussion about the relative merits of bronze and iron.

Bronze was seen as a superior material; it was harder to come by than iron, which was to be found just about everywhere, but nobody had quite mastered the efficient use of iron in making anything you might actually want to own (such as a really good sword, or a nice sharp-tipped spear).

Unfortunately, tin, a key component of bronze, is not to be found everywhere. It had to be brought great distances by hazardous sea routes. Its supply was vulnerable to disruption. Such disruption is most likely what led to the switch to iron - much as people wanted to go on using bronze, the raw materials became too rare and expensive.

Three millennia on, and necessity has once again been proved the mother of invention. We are extremely good at using iron as an ingredient in all sorts of stuff you wouldn't want to try to use bronze to make. In fact, try to tell anyone that there was a time when iron was considered too troublesome to bother using at all, and you might get a quizzical or disbelieving look in response. But now it's oil and gas, the key raw materials of our energy-hungry economy, whose supplies are limited and vulnerable.

The point ... our current renewable technologies are in their infancy. wind turbines are big and not very efficient. But if we don't build them and learn from them, that's all the technology will ever be. We need to be brave and, I believe, take as given that if the human race is still here in another 3,000 years, they will find it bizarre and ever-so-primitive of us that we would ever have wanted to hang on to fossil fuel power generation instead of exploring the alternatives.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

To tell you the truth I don't know. Maybe that report is talking about early models, because I've seen some turning in very high winds.

No it is a fact ,there are serious limitations with wind turbines in high winds simply because of the enormous stresses generated even at operational speeds .That is not to say they don't serve a purpose though ,they can supplement a small percentage of the national grid but will never replace traditional power stations as nuclear generation can do and it is very short sighted of any government to think so

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it is a fact ,there are serious limitations with wind turbines in high winds simply because of the enormous stresses generated even at operational speeds .That is not to say they don't serve a purpose though ,they can supplement a small percentage of the national grid but will never replace traditional power stations as nuclear generation can do and it is very short sighted of any government to think so

Which is why we need to explore alternatives, like wave pawer, tidal power, geothermal, etc...

Do you know how much of the UK could be made uninhabitable by a disaster at one of our nuclear power stations? Where would the population from that area go??

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Which is why we need to explore alternatives, like wave pawer, tidal power, geothermal, etc...

Do you know how much of the UK could be made uninhabitable by a disaster at one of our nuclear power stations? Where would the population from that area go??

Indeed we do need to explore alternatives i agree ,but we need new sources of power generation now not in 20-30 yrs or more .Actually we needed it 20 yrs ago but the governments of the time didn't see the urgency .Serious research should have been done on tidal ,wind ,solar, etc long before now and maybe then we wouldn't be stuck with a half developed technology that cannot generate our power requirements and we wouldn't be faced with the risk vs reward choice we now face with nuclear power.I agree that a accident on the scale of chernobyl would be catastrophic for the UK but ,because of our shortsightedness we have have i feel left ourselves with no other choice .

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Indeed we do need to explore alternatives i agree ,but we need new sources of power generation now not in 20-30 yrs or more .Actually we needed it 20 yrs ago but the governments of the time didn't see the urgency .Serious research should have been done on tidal ,wind ,solar, etc long before now and maybe then we wouldn't be stuck with a half developed technology that cannot generate our power requirements and we wouldn't be faced with the risk vs reward choice we now face with nuclear power.I agree that a accident on the scale of chernobyl would be catastrophic for the UK but ,because of our shortsightedness we have have i feel left ourselves with no other choice .

Apart from the fact that we still have plenty of coal

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Apart from the fact that we still have plenty of coal

which is getting harder to get as this proves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

which is getting harder to get as this proves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

There were loads of pits that were closed down by Maggie, that still had loads of coal left.

She destroyed the British coal industry because she wanted to destroy the NUM.