FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Alternate power sources
Alternate power sources
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Would anyone be interested in cheaper electric? Just having multiple small turbines in your locale (less than 500 meters) should suffice for wind-power. They're not an eyesore (I think they're quite majestic) by commanding over the area. The public seem to handle regular pylons ok, & the turbines are much smaller.
Anybody interested in the idea then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would anyone be interested in cheaper electric? Just having multiple small turbines in your locale (less than 500 meters) should suffice for wind-power. They're not an eyesore (I think they're quite majestic) by commanding over the area. The public seem to handle regular pylons ok, & the turbines are much smaller.
Anybody interested in the idea then?"
Not me personally but I have a friend who's mad into creating free or cheaper energy source |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Turbines ARE an eyesore in my humble opinion anyway.
I'm going to be controversial and suggest a wave of new nuclear power stations, make us self sufficient without having to depend on oil imports.
Not everyone's cup of tea I know and will mean billions of pounds worth of investment but it's a good way forward provided we can keep them secure from natural disaster and terrorists! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Cant you guess,
small wind turbines give out very little power, so you'd need a great many of them which will not be attractive or even practical.
We should have started a programme of nuclear stations ten or more years ago instead we've gone off in a wind/solar dead end at huge and wasted expense.
Alec |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Turbines ARE an eyesore in my humble opinion anyway.
I'm going to be controversial and suggest a wave of new nuclear power stations, make us self sufficient without having to depend on oil imports.
Not everyone's cup of tea I know and will mean billions of pounds worth of investment but it's a good way forward provided we can keep them secure from natural disaster and terrorists! "
 Nothing wrong with nuclear power if it's used and managed properly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
2 big problems with nuclear
1st Chernobyl and Fukushima
2nd they actually cost more than a few billion and we gotta start on decommissioning the ones we already got and can't afford to decommission really soon.
Like it or lump it wind turbines are here to stay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I personally would choose to go nuclear - but the only thing that deters most people from nuclear power is the dangers of radioactivity.
Britain is one of the windiest countries in Europe, so why not choose wind power?
Do you find small turbines (around the 7 or 8 meter mark) offensive? Then what of the thousands of pylons throughout the country?
I think the public would get used to them (or even welcome them when they see how cheap the supply will be . . .). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I think the public would get used to them (or even welcome them when they see how cheap the supply will be . . .)."
You're just taking the piss now.
If you think there's a market for these, there isn't, then go for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The new vertical ones there currently working on to be built into lampposts are hardly noticeable and as with most technology they'll get more efficient and cheaper once they go into mass production |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.
Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!
I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Because it's a waste of time and effort as somebody would have to go and repaint them constantly,really it would be just alot easier for people to get used to them.
As for no market there's a company in Holland that makes 15 million of them a year and seimens has invested 1 billion into a raft of new generation wind turbines so I'm guessing somebody's buying them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.
Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!
I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?."
Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.
Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.
Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.
Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!
I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?."
...3 mile island finished the nuclear industry in the states, maybe you are quite young as windscale also went close before that.
The problem with nuclear power is
It's not manageable unless you spend huge amounts of money into safety and even then you still can't allow for freak accidents like Fukushima, (by the way Britain also stands near a fault line) it's just not as active.
There are technologies like liquid thorium reactors that would work alot safer but nobody really wants to invest in them as you can't get that lovely by product of plutonium. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why not make them look like proper old time windmills make them into an attractive landscape addition not an eyesore theres loads of sites that used to have windmills they must have been sited where there was consistent reliable wind. ( the houses of parliament seem to be the most reliable site in the nation lil) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.
Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!
I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?.
Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.
Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.
Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems."
...Very few! Your having a laugh surely.
Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.
Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.
Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.
Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems.
But the cost in quality of life has been terrible to those who inhabit the affected area (it's since been declared a no-go area, but children have been born severely deformed down wind). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.
Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.
Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems.
But the cost in quality of life has been terrible to those who inhabit the affected area (it's since been declared a no-go area, but children have been born severely deformed down wind)."
And coal mining and oil exploration are safer how? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.
Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!
I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?.
Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.
Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.
Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems....Very few! Your having a laugh surely.
Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.
Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete."
Pretty accurate estimate eh? Between 200k and 1.2m. Would hate to see a bad one.
Deaths directly related to Chernobyl and aftermath are significantly lower.
One could get silly and say that every resident within a 1000 mile radius will die eventually. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Most radioactive particulate are toxins it's not the radiation that kills you long term, it's affects are like asbestos they take 20 years to show up but if you look at the Ukraine's current cancer rate to pre 1985 there up 20 fold victims like Elena baltacha where it's hard to exactly prove that particulate from Chernobyl caused her cancer but the statistics are shockingly high! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!)."
Serious question for you :
Does the wind get "used up" when it hits the turbines.
Is there a limit to how many turbines can be operated by the wind?
Forget efficiencies for the moment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It varies wildly due the 200,000 report being a un sponsored report and the 1.2 million retort being independent, make from that what you wish.
But considering the official deaths directly in the first three months was 1750, you have a bizarre case for "very few". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!).
Serious question for you :
Does the wind get "used up" when it hits the turbines.
Is there a limit to how many turbines can be operated by the wind?
Forget efficiencies for the moment.
"
Yes xx is the correct answer x
I do wonder what op would have done for electric when the wind stops ?
Windy country you say? Perhaps however ask myself and other kite surfers what the wind has been like this year 
There is certainly a place in UK Power generation for wind xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.
Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete."
Pretty accurate estimate eh? Between 200k and 1.2m. Would hate to see a bad one.
Deaths directly related to Chernobyl and aftermath are significantly lower.
One could get silly and say that every resident within a 1000 mile radius will die eventually.
The Soviets don't want to declare how many people actually died, but if it's 'only' 200K, then 200K is by far too much! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When the wind stops there's pv when the sun's not shining there's waves or geo thermal but more than likely it will be a combination of lots.
I'd rather (and do) live near turbines than a nuclear power station built by the French and run by the Chinese which when there is an accident as Fukushima is proving ,is one awful Pandora to put back in the box |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Wind turbines produce electricity which is then stored in 'cells' (that means batteries to most people). As all cells release a DC voltage & most items in a house require 240 AC an inverter is required (either that or your house'll need converting for the DC supply!).
It can be a little daunting at first (to those with little experience of electrics), but the system should pay for itself in time (even less time if many people choose this method for producing electricity within a community). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wind turbines produce electricity which is then stored in 'cells' (that means batteries to most people). As all cells release a DC voltage & most items in a house require 240 AC an inverter is required (either that or your house'll need converting for the DC supply!).
It can be a little daunting at first (to those with little experience of electrics), but the system should pay for itself in time (even less time if many people choose this method for producing electricity within a community)."
....Actually everything solid state in your house runs on dc they use a rectifier to convert the ac supply to dc so you'd be converting dc to ac via a inverter and then that item would be using a rectifier to convert it back to dc  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm for wind tidal and solar but find nuclear mainly a no for future build due to the vast amount of waste that does not just disappear and is around for hundreds of thousands of years.
The op posed the question as if there was a free giveaway which seemed strange. Many are owned by overseas tax dodgers and venture capitalists who don't give a damn what we the consumer pay for our energy and don't care to help anyone but themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I'm aware most electrical items run from a lower voltage DC supply, but if you decide to use DC then you've got to ensure all transformers are removed from the items you require power for.
Sexy-Bum seems to know what they're talking about. They must be aware of the problems inherent with DC (difficulty supplying power over any appreciable distance etc.). You have to convert DC to AC, then raise it's voltage where the volt drop won't affect the final voltage after it's transformed back to a usable voltage - hence the turbine within a short distance!
This only really matters because people regard any new blot on the landscape as an 'eyesore', but they take little notice of (as already mentioned) pylons! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Couldn't agree more short length generation is key to efficiency, the solution to the problem is already available in most cases it just requires some will to do it.
Thorium(liquid salt) reactors are inherently safer, produce by products of much needed rare earths are cheaper to build and run in fact they were one of the original reactors used in the 40,s.
The truth is most things we have like (nuclear) are massively subsidised by government because they want plutonium and enriched uranium and has nothing to do with cheap or renewable energy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tidal power is completely ignored by the government. The amount of energy that could be harnessed in the bristol channel, the hebrides and the shetlands is phenomenal. Its as regular as clockwork. But the government try to poo-poo it by saying the installation costs are too high. And just exactly how much are we going to pay for nuclear power stations, the fuel for them, the reproccessing plant, the waste disposal, the risk of accidents? We don't even make use of our rivers. For gods sake people used water power prior to electricity being discovered! It's there, it's almost constant and we ignore it. Utter fucking madness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bovethekneeCouple
over a year ago
Hampshire / Herefordshire |
Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What you need is nuclear fusion reactors not fission. Also, if you ever want to scare yourself, research how much environmental damage is done creating the magnets inside the turbine generators.
By the way the danger from chernobyl has not passed, if the radiation gets into the water table you wont be able to farm in mainland Europe. Hugs.x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Couldn't agree more short length generation is key to efficiency, the solution to the problem is already available in most cases it just requires some will to do it.
Thorium(liquid salt) reactors are inherently safer, produce by products of much needed rare earths are cheaper to build and run in fact they were one of the original reactors used in the 40,s.
The truth is most things we have like (nuclear) are massively subsidised by government because they want plutonium and enriched uranium and has nothing to do with cheap or renewable energy"
Now, if you were to say that the (sneaky) dosposal of depleted uranium in Iraq, an illegal war to many, has led to close on 1.2 million deaths i'd not disagree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves."
£15 to run a kettle? Are you filing your bath from it?
My electric bill is about 30 a month and I have a tumble dryer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves."
you've hit the nail on the head.
Technology is always the key and nuclear is a 50 year old technology.
Led lights save 90% and run on dc!
Led TV,s save 70% on run and 95% on stand by. It's all about investment.
As an example there's two scientists in California working on synthetic cell generation.
Now ones producing oil from engineered algae and he's received a 20 million dollar grant.
The others working on an engineered cell that eats cancerous cells and his lab results are startling, out of 100 terminally ill mice he had a 100%success rate with brain tumours ,bearing in mind brain tumours have one of the worst survival rates for cancer.
He received a 2000 dollar grant.
There's more profit in oil than curing brain tumours, hence oil gets more progressive research.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves.
£15 to run a kettle? Are you filing your bath from it?
My electric bill is about 30 a month and I have a tumble dryer"
There could be a clue in the £1 for 10 watts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bovethekneeCouple
over a year ago
Hampshire / Herefordshire |
No I got the figures from the electric company. 3kw kettle used for regular teas, coffees, cooking etc. is nearly £15 a month. I will try and only heat the smallest amount from now on as it does mount up. Look up Electricity Running Costs Calculator it gets scary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Isn't it said that 10% of the world's electricity is now used for the 'net and connected devices?
How about mandating self powered treadles to generate the power required, maybe a dynamo on a fixed bike? Win, win, cut down on obesity too?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And on another point some of the world best mathematicians work in the banking sector doing risk assessment algorithms because the pays better.ffs no wonder we're in trouble! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No I got the figures from the electric company. 3kw kettle used for regular teas, coffees, cooking etc. is nearly £15 a month. I will try and only heat the smallest amount from now on as it does mount up. Look up Electricity Running Costs Calculator it gets scary."
I only fill my kettle with what I need and have an energy efficient washing machine and fridge freezer. I always turn off lights when leaving a room and use phillips eco 40w bulbs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Isn't it said that 10% of the world's electricity is now used for the 'net and connected devices?
How about mandating self powered treadles to generate the power required, maybe a dynamo on a fixed bike? Win, win, cut down on obesity too?
"
Perhaps use the power generated from all gym equipment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I boil water in the micro-wave (so there's none left over left in the kettle). That is unless I've a few cuppa's to brew (then the kettles quicker).
I changed to energy efficient bulbs (between 5 & 11 watts) around 6 years ago. Don't know how much money it's saved me though, but I'm aware it's saving me (some) money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves.you've hit the nail on the head.
Technology is always the key and nuclear is a 50 year old technology.
Led lights save 90% and run on dc!
Led TV,s save 70% on run and 95% on stand by. It's all about investment.
As an example there's two scientists in California working on synthetic cell generation.
Now ones producing oil from engineered algae and he's received a 20 million dollar grant.
The others working on an engineered cell that eats cancerous cells and his lab results are startling, out of 100 terminally ill mice he had a 100%success rate with brain tumours ,bearing in mind brain tumours have one of the worst survival rates for cancer.
He received a 2000 dollar grant.
There's more profit in oil than curing brain tumours, hence oil gets more progressive research.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
