Is Wind Power the best answer?

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
I was aprt of the group that fought against the wind farm proposed on the Western isles. (we won thankfully).

Lets have a quick look at some points.

1) for every turbine there needs to be an anchor base. Each base is on average 1000 tonnes of concrete. A 500 turbine 'farm' therefore needs 1/2 million tonnes of concrete.

2) each wind farm is placed in a remote location - these locations need road access... for the windfarm on lewis there needed to be roughly 100 miles of roads built that were strong enough to take lorries 24 hrs a day.

3) Peat. Most of scotlands wind farms are built upon peatlands. Now, peat is 70 % stored CO2. Dig up a tonne of peat and you get .7 of a tonne of CO2 released into the air. Our 1/2 million tonne wind farm concrete means digging up 1/2 million tonnes of peat... releasing 350,000 tonnes of CO2 into the air.

Thats more CO2 into the air in construction than can ever be saved during the wind factories entire life time.

Thats not including the tonnage of peat dug up for roads and facilities.

Now we get to the power available.

Do you realise that for every watt out put there needs to be a back up to match the out put watt for watt in case of failure ?

In that case it would be smarter to build a nuclear station, have it running at the wind farms full capacity 24 hours a day, save millions of tonnes of concrete having to be produced (massive CO2 damage in concrete production alone) save that 350,000 tonnes of CO2 being released into the air from diggin up the peat...

and lets not forget the damage to the world as we dig up the materials to make thousands of miles of cables and pylons...

Wind farms are a con to make people think they are needed. They are not. They are wasteful, damaging, bad, far worse for the environment than any other source of power, and lets not get started on the damage they have to peoples health who have to live near them.

and how about all of the waste that the nuclear plant creates ? over the life time of the generation plant how much toxic waste will be created ?
lets say that we compare a nuclear power plant to a wind farm over the period of 100 years ,, which would create more pollution in that period of time ?
how much concrete would have to be used to build a nuclear plant ? i would imagine just as much as building a wind farm .
how much co2 would be released into the atmosphere while digging up the pete for the extremely large foundation in order to build a nuclear plant ?
in the end those things are like comparing oranges to oranges "exactly the same" ...

Originally posted by ironman433

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
And how about all of the waste that the nuclear plant creates ? over the life time of the generation plant how much toxic waste will be created ?
lets say that we compare a nuclear power plant to a wind farm over the period of 100 years ,, which would create more pollution in that period of time ?

Good question. I will research this. My guess -- one nuclear power plant is the equivalent of approximately 1000 of the largest windmills we currently make (2.5 Gigawatts for the Westinghouse AP1000, and 5 Megawatts for a single wind turbine. (The Enercon E-126 can get 7 Megawatts -- however, it is a prototype.)

Each nuclear reactor produces about 25 tons of nuclear waste per year. I imagine 100 years of nuclear waste would take a large warehouse to store per nuclear power plant. Say, several acres of nuclear waste.

I will try to get some better facts and links. But I think nuclear power is competitive with "totally green" power.

EDIT: to fix quotes.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
I was aprt of the group that fought against the wind farm proposed on the Western isles. (we won thankfully).

Lets have a quick look at some points.

1) for every turbine there needs to be an anchor base. Each base is on average 1000 tonnes of concrete. A 500 turbine 'farm' therefore needs 1/2 million tonnes of concrete.

2) each wind farm is placed in a remote location - these locations need road access... for the windfarm on lewis there needed to be roughly 100 miles of roads built that were strong enough to take lorries 24 hrs a day.

3) Peat. Most of scotlands wind farms are built upon peatlands. Now, peat is 70 % stored CO2. Dig up a tonne of peat and you get .7 of a tonne of CO2 released into the air. Our 1/2 million tonne wind farm concrete means digging up 1/2 million tonnes of peat... releasing 350,000 tonnes of CO2 into the air.

While I understand you point I think you are missing the LARGER one mate. Yes Footing use a lot of concrete, that is lame, perhaps as Alternative Energy continues to grow new methods can be developed that lessen the impact. However, in comparison to the effects of todays main energy supplies: Coal and Oil the benefits outweigh the impacts.

Roads are also another impact that is unfortunate but necessary. I am sure they can be designed to have a limited impact on the ecosystem they are built in, but still an eyesore to be sure. Sadly I feel that your frustration is a case of the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). While it is entirely convenient for you and me both to get our energy supply from somewhere else, someplace we need not see or know by name, we have little IN OUR FACE to make us take action against such a system. But when it pops up in your back yard and you have to see it you realize...it sucks.

The CO2 from peat is also a tragedy. Perhaps something "appropriate" can be done with it.

Thats more CO2 into the air in construction than can ever be saved during the wind factories entire life time.

Thats not including the tonnage of peat dug up for roads and facilities.

I would like to see some evidence to support this claim, it seems quite outrageous to me.


Now the next 3 blocks of text are rather confusing and I would love if you could sort a few things out. Foremost could you please explaine your progression of logic:

Now we get to the power available.

Do you realise that for every watt out put there needs to be a back up to match the out put watt for watt in case of failure ?

In that case it would be smarter to build a nuclear station, have it running at the wind farms full capacity 24 hours a day, save millions of tonnes of concrete having to be produced (massive CO2 damage in concrete production alone) save that 350,000 tonnes of CO2 being released into the air from diggin up the peat...
[

I have a hard time understanding how you got to Nuclear Energy being more efficient and safer than wind; I do not understand the bit about matching watt for watt in production; I do not understand how a Nuclear Plant would use less concrete than a Wind Farm; and I do not understand how a Wind Farm will result in greater production of carbon in comparison to present methods of production.

Care to elaborate?

and lets not forget the damage to the world as we dig up the materials to make thousands of miles of cables and pylons...

Wind farms are a con to make people think they are needed. They are not. They are wasteful, damaging, bad, far worse for the environment than any other source of power, and lets not get started on the damage they have to peoples health who have to live near them.

This is foolishness. You are trying to state, at the very least indirectly, that Nuclear Power is safer and more efficient to produce than Wind Power.

Please do not forget the WASTE produced by a Nuclear Power Plant. If any road was going to have 24 hour traffic as you elude to it would be the Nuclear Power Plant not the Wind Farm. To complain about the "digging" done in wind farming for "pylons and cables" what about Storing the Nuclear Waste? Also wouldn't a nuclear plant have to be "connected to the grid as well? Where do you think that goes? It goes into the ground where it will sit and hopefully not break open for THOUSANDS of years.

Yes Alternative Energy sources will have impacts on the planet and people, that is without a doubt. The Alternative Energy community is pushing for progress and not perfection. Steady progress is the answer to our problems not continually getting suck in vicious cycles that do damage to everything at a magnitude that makes the alternative energy impacts pale in comparison.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Animal]

The best answer kind of depends on what you define as the "problem." There are all kinds of ways to generate electricity, some more efficient than others. But is the problem really that we can't get enough cheap electricity, or is the problem that we have too many people who want too much electricity?

Because no matter what you build to generate electricity, the end result is that we do more mining and manufacturing to build more wires and distribution systems and appliances that use more electricity. And it all contributes to chewing up resources, polluting the planet, adding heat, etc. And it just keeps expanding and growing with no end in sight. And the easier our electric appliances make our lives, the more we reproduce, creating more of a demand. It's a vicious circle.

So what's the real "best answer?" Learning to minimize our need for such huge amounts of energy, including actively limiting the number of people who live on the planet.

reply to post by Buck Division


the reason why you shy away from discussing Chernobyl is, ironically, the same why it can't be left unadressed. it's emotional, logicl does not work here.

showing off modern reactor deisgns just proves that kabooms probably won't happen in more advanced countries, it won't keep the 3rd world from building shoddy plants which, given enough time and Murphy's law, make such an event basically inevitable.

i wonder how many people were afraid of conventional power plants before the advent of GW and if that's the only reason, nuke panic building should be treated like GW itself, as a scam.

================================================

Originally posted by Nohup


So what's the real "best answer?" Learning to minimize our need for such huge amounts of energy, including actively limiting the number of people who live on the planet.

i agree with increasing efficiency over the board, i do not condone 'actively limiting' anything, as you put it, just because you perceive a problem.

the truth is that if electric power is overused, it will fail and we'll be sitting in the dark for a few hours a day. there is a lot to be gained from smoothing out load distribution, obviously, that way you can use existing plants more efficiently and all it would take is a simple form of signalling for heavy consumers, ie. basically anything that heats electrically. (using the hot water supply for your home appliances can greatly reduce your electric bill as long as you use heat pump or gas for your hot water, just a thought)

you otoh, would apparently rather kill people, NWO style, at least that's how i understood it, rather than think for one second that a) most populous countries barely have electric power anyway b) electric power represents only a small fraction of all energy needs and c) losing it from time to time, as said before does not equal the end of the world.


if you know the solution before the problem, the people who came up with the solution are the real problem.

reply to post by Iggus


renewable enerygy is the way to go -wind power -there is a site on ats concerning how to make a helical wind power air foil for running a house hold or bigger with some reseach by our leaders and investment by the wind power companies they should be able to make the towers smaller and take up a lot less space than the big bladed wind mills they are now using. why dont they place them on top of the taller buildings with the blades hanging out above the streets even if there is no wind they would still work as the heat rising would make them work without wind .something to think on or pass on .

There ought to be a way to harness the electromagnetic fields around all living things, the earth and interstellar bodies in order to generate the needed energy.

I do think many places could construct wind farms ... such as municipalities and townships as well as private citizens. It would definitely be worth the investment (and investing in better wind turbine structures that help save bird populations that come in contact with them.)

Speaking of better wind turbine design, here is the Energytower.

If the world economy were different (and I had millions ) I would definitely invest in this company and become its representative in Canada.

Do take a look at the technology. I think it is flippin' brilliant.

Do people think that it is worth spending all this money on wind power when other forms of 'green' energy are available. In the UK we could generate about 12% of the current electricity demand through tidal barrages in a select number of estuaries around the UK. These would not only provide predictable power, but would also provide flood defence for areas behind them. The problem of flooding is seen as a major one for the future with some areas becoming very hard to defend and get insurance for. Barrages may provide a cheaper flood defence system when combined with the power generation.

Of course barrages also have environmental impacts, such as changing the tidal range behind the barrage. There are no magic answers to generating 'green' power. Wouldn't it be better though to think more widly than we do at the moment. All we seem to hear about, in the UK anyway, is wind power. Why?

reply to post by Iggus




I hope so

Love

Nia Wind