FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Wind Farms or Nuclear Power ?
Wind Farms or Nuclear Power ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As much as i dislike the idea of it nuclear has to be best alternative assuming it is safe as is possible.
Wind farms also are good to be honest we need both.
Problem we have at moment is the nimby element who are in favour as long as not near them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Maybe we need to look at Nuclear Waste management before we decide to make more of the stuff.
It is toxic for thousands of years,and we have no viable way to dispose of it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ultimately, wind has the same problem as solar - you never how much you'll have at any given time. Nuclear still has the waste storage issue. I think that ultimately the solution is going to be fusion, but we need to invest far more in research for that to become viable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Energy guru,,,Saul Griffiths analytical projection based on the mathematical evidence available now, suggests even if we harvested all the energy available from the flow of all the rivers in the world, it would only supply half of humanity's current energy use.
If we harvested all the energy available from the actions of the tides around the world it would only supply 1/5 of humanity's current energy use.
In order to roll-back the effects of man-made emissions which may have contributed to global warming, we'd have to build 100 square meters of solar cells every second for 20 years, or 50 square meters of solar thermal capacity every second for next 25 years.
Or for wind energy we'd have to install one of the most efficient (and therefore largest) turbines every 5 minutes for 25 years.
If we tried to use nuclear power (which many experts say is impractical, too expensive and too dangerous), we'd have to build one nuclear power plant a week for 25 years. (In comparison, the U.S. hasn't opened any new nuclear power plants since the 1970s.)
For geothermal energy we'd have to install 3 massive steam turbines every day for 25 years.
For bio-fuels we'd have to cover essentially the size of Idaho and Wyoming with genetically engineered algae…
Which all Kinda puts the size of the problem humanity faces in perspective dun-it… eh!
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wind, solar and tidal are inefficient. Nuclear is the only way to go.
Next time you get your leccy bill, consider the fact that around 30% is green tax to pay for wind farms etc. Its a total disgrace and a monumental scam |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
it's not been widely reported that out coal fired power stations were the only things stopping blackouts at the peak demand times during this exceptionally long winter. Trouble is, some of them will be closed by next winter.
Nuclear waste storage is a big issue. Plans for a huge storage site in Cumbria were recently rejected. Any new plans for power stations have yet to be finalized and are thus many years away.
Wind is inefficient, costly and unpredictable. Tide is costly and nowhere near happening in the capacity we'd need.
We live in an ever increasing population of people who think that electricity is magic and won't stop. Who'd rather turn the thermostat up than put a jumper on when it's cold.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
it's not been widely reported that out coal fired power stations were the only things stopping blackouts at the peak demand times during this exceptionally long winter. Trouble is, some of them will be closed by next winter.
Nuclear waste storage is a big issue. Plans for a huge storage site in Cumbria were recently rejected. Any new plans for power stations have yet to be finalized and are thus many years away.
Wind is inefficient, costly and unpredictable. Tide is costly and nowhere near happening in the capacity we'd need.
We live in an ever increasing population of people who think that electricity is magic and won't stop. Who'd rather turn the thermostat up than put a jumper on when it's cold.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Renewables need to be properly invested in for them to become a viable form of energy production.
I believe that microgrneration needs to be invested in, solar energy is the only energy that will never run out (when the sun goes we go with it) if every house and comerical buildings roofs were covered with panels that would cut consumption. Having a small turbine in a garden or a set of turbines in dead space on comercial property would reduce consumption. Any excess energy produce is sold to the grid to support the properties /businesses that use more than they produce.
People need to stop worrying about the look of these things, what would they rather look at a wind turbine which i think is a pretty decent bit of engineering or a massive coal/gas/nuclear power station (one of which im currently sat in) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
Wind turbines are a complete waste of time ...they only generate a fraction of power the so called experts predicted...they are a blight on the landscape and ....wait for it......they dont work in windy conditions (they have to be locked down  ) ...in our little country nuclear is the best way to go ...we do not suffer extreme natural disasters like earthquakes etc so the structures would probably be the safest in the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
"Nuclear seems best option to be honest.. we are in 2013 not 1980 so the safty shouldnt be an issue anymore pass on the waste to some skint 3rd world country Spain will do  "
If it is a matter of safety then nuclear power is one of the safest. More people are killed and injured because of the coal and gas industry than there ever has been with nuclear.
Nuclear is a hell of a lot safer than people think. It is the word that scares people. Even in Japan they are starting to realise they overacted just a bit when their power station overheated. No one was killed and the lasts report is that no extra cases of cancer would be caused by it.
How many people have been killed because of nuclear power in the UK ? and how many have been killed because of coal and gas? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By * Jay69Man
over a year ago
Bridgwater - Somerset |
Fusion is the way to go - we'll have it within the next 25 years, though they've been saying that for at least 25 years.
Coal - with scrubbers and shale gas (fracking)could be of great use (get used to the mini earthquakes) and there may be some mileage in carbon capture.
However, energy efficiency and putting on that extra jumper is the obvious first step.
Renewables have their place, obviously, but it'll be a mix.
Probably a political fudge too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
wind farms, they are best out at sea too, no need to waste valuable land on them inland, best to use the coastal waters for placing windfarms, the noise does not interfere with people, the land remains ready for other uses and they dont look too bad at sea 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
listened to Janet Street Porter on Question Time some time ago blathering on about what a blot on the landscape wind farms are and imao she was spouting a load of balls.
I'm no expert on how effective wind / alternative energy is but can imagine it'll never produce what our greedy consumer society demands.
s for disposing of Nuclear waste how about James Lovelock's suggestion that if we wanna preserve the rain forests put in the middle of them then no one will want to go near them?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" listened to Janet Street Porter on Question Time some time ago blathering on about what a blot on the landscape wind farms are and imao she was spouting a load of balls.
I'm no expert on how effective wind / alternative energy is but can imagine it'll never produce what our greedy consumer society demands.
s for disposing of Nuclear waste how about James Lovelock's suggestion that if we wanna preserve the rain forests put in the middle of them then no one will want to go near them?
"
Sounds great, lets kill off the rain forests with 12,000 tons of high level nuclear waste every year.(at present levels)
This waste has a half life of around 1,000,000 years.
Should see of mankind very nicely.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wind power turbines if compared to cars are kind of at the model T level at the moment, they are complex expensive to maintain and very inefficient. The only way forward is to make more of them! eventually we will make them efficient long lasting and cheaper.
Solar is a great solution but that is even more primitive plus it gets dark! so we need to work out other ways of capturing it in the first place then novel solutions on storage, lead acid batteries are probably not the solution!
Nuclear is the only one we have that is clean'ish and efficient that is mostly due to the fact it's very old technology . heat water make steam drive a turbine. been doing that quite a while and it's now efficient.
I think someone will figure out how to use satellite technology to make solar power in space where the sun need not set on it. Maybe a line of sight microwave stream to get the power generated back to the surface.
The other avenue is to reduce consumption which is happening, TV's are a good example the flat screen technology uses vastly less energy than CRT unfortunately we coupled that with multiple channels so now have several screens in different rooms on for longer etc.
If all else fails we have the option of nuclear war, which will vastly reduce the population and the need for electricity in the first place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
" listened to Janet Street Porter on Question Time some time ago blathering on about what a blot on the landscape wind farms are and imao she was spouting a load of balls.
I'm no expert on how effective wind / alternative energy is but can imagine it'll never produce what our greedy consumer society demands.
s for disposing of Nuclear waste how about James Lovelock's suggestion that if we wanna preserve the rain forests put in the middle of them then no one will want to go near them?
Sounds great, lets kill off the rain forests with 12,000 tons of high level nuclear waste every year.(at present levels)
This waste has a half life of around 1,000,000 years.
Should see of mankind very nicely.
"
The waste kills rainforests ? Not sure where you are getting the information from ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
" listened to Janet Street Porter on Question Time some time ago blathering on about what a blot on the landscape wind farms are and imao she was spouting a load of balls.
I'm no expert on how effective wind / alternative energy is but can imagine it'll never produce what our greedy consumer society demands.
s for disposing of Nuclear waste how about James Lovelock's suggestion that if we wanna preserve the rain forests put in the middle of them then no one will want to go near them?
Sounds great, lets kill off the rain forests with 12,000 tons of high level nuclear waste every year.(at present levels)
This waste has a half life of around 1,000,000 years.
Should see of mankind very nicely.
The waste kills rainforests ? Not sure where you are getting the information from ?
"
What will damage the planet and its inhabitants more, nuclear waste or the increase of carbon in the atmosphere?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We need to invest in both renewable and nuclear power. Nuclear power will get safer the more we invest into things such cold fusion, as for waste we can store waste safely and have been for 50 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
"We need to invest in both renewable and nuclear power. Nuclear power will get safer the more we invest into things such cold fusion, as for waste we can store waste safely and have been for 50 years"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The waste kills rainforests ? Not sure where you are getting the information from ?
"
You honestly think the rain forests will survive having 12.000 tons of high level radio active waste dumped in them ever single year,will make them thrive.
Maybe we could put it in your back garden if thats the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to invest in both renewable and nuclear power. Nuclear power will get safer the more we invest into things such cold fusion, as for waste we can store waste safely and have been for 50 years"
It has a half life of 1 million years.
After 50 we still dont know what to do with it.
Can you give one instance of a facility that can safely store something for 1 million years.(and thats the minimum time) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Strap the nuclear waste to a feck off big rocket and fire it into deep space .....job done "
While I'm in favour more use of nuclear power until fusion and better renewables come online, this idea is insane. Rocket launches fail. They often don't make the news because no-one was hurt. We don't want 50 tons of caesium, hafnium and plutonium falling out of the sky. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wind, solar and tidal are inefficient. Nuclear is the only way to go.
Next time you get your leccy bill, consider the fact that around 30% is green tax to pay for wind farms etc. Its a total disgrace and a monumental scam"
. People still do get how inefficient Wind Farms are. CFC is the real cause and Solar wind the cause of. Climate change. Nuclear Fusion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Muppet Voters in the Uk still Believe the Maggot thieving lying Bastards MPs tell the truth. None of them have any idea what they are Talking about on Climate Change. Drax coal fired stations are using wood pellets from. USA hard wood. Trees. More deforestation. We have. Physicists in UK that can help sort things out on Fusion you only after to look at the fucking arrogant pickles Glegg. Etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
"Wind, solar and tidal are inefficient. Nuclear is the only way to go.
Next time you get your leccy bill, consider the fact that around 30% is green tax to pay for wind farms etc. Its a total disgrace and a monumental scam. People still do get how inefficient Wind Farms are. CFC is the real cause and Solar wind the cause of. Climate change. Nuclear Fusion "
CFCs as far as I am aware do not cause Climate change. The effect they had was cause hole in the ozone layer to appear over the north and south pole.
These holes allowed an increased about of UV light though the atmosphere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nuclear fusion (will also be able to consume some nuclear waste, gradually reversing damage) - products will be less dangerous/shorter lived isotopes.
Wind Power is too inefficient but combined with other green power generation might be enough.
Nuclear fission will become much cleaner/more efficient when the commercial Thorium Reactors or Standing Wave Reactors come online and will bridge the gap between current Tech and Fusion.
Long term considerations include solar power satellites beaming microwaves to ground stations or little anti-matter 'hoovers' roaming the Van Allen Belt... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
"Nuclear fusion (will also be able to consume some nuclear waste, gradually reversing damage) - products will be less dangerous/shorter lived isotopes.
Wind Power is too inefficient but combined with other green power generation might be enough.
Nuclear fission will become much cleaner/more efficient when the commercial Thorium Reactors or Standing Wave Reactors come online and will bridge the gap between current Tech and Fusion.
Long term considerations include solar power satellites beaming microwaves to ground stations or little anti-matter 'hoovers' roaming the Van Allen Belt..."
Issue is, we are suffering because of the increase difficult of extracting fossil fuels and with the effects of burning them now. We have the problems now! ... So we need solutions now, not 10-25 years in the future!
We should use the nuclear technology we have now until we have a better solution. Though any new nuclear power station would take years and years to approve, build and come online, so in a sense not a solution for now 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem there is the planning laws. I heard on the radio today that the Tories plan to increase the power of local people to object to wind farms. If we're to solve the problem, they need to be stripped of the power to object at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is also a massive drive to increase efficiency of technology at the moment, our energy generating capacity doesn't need to increase if we have a bank of super capacitors at every power plant and sub-station storing energy during the night... Intelligent power grids and reclaiming energy 'lost' through thermal inefficiency or friction. Energy efficient lighting, better insulation, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tomCom OP Man
over a year ago
Wellingborough |
"of course what we really need to do is reduce the population. Otherwise all the energy in the world won't be enough for us.
Oh, and we might be able to feed everyone then too.
"
Hmmm has someone been reading Dan Brown ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"of course what we really need to do is reduce the population. Otherwise all the energy in the world won't be enough for us.
Oh, and we might be able to feed everyone then too.
"
Vertical farming and Biorock/Seacrete (both of which consume energy) would solve both those problems so I find this hard to believe... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hmmm has someone been reading Dan Brown ?"
No need to read a novel, last years population figures and projections were scary, over 7,900,000,000 of us now, and Apple want them all to buy an iPad
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
