Wind v Nuclear
 

With all the hallabalou going on at the moment about wind farms, whilst acknowledging we need to move away from fossil fuel power stations, what are your views?

I'm sure I saw a report into how much polution is release during the manufacturing cycle of a wind turbine.

Given the small amount of electrical return you get from them, would the money that is being spent on them be better put to use developing cleaner and safer nuclear power stations?

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Nuclear - wind too ineffecient --- and boring :D

If this works, we can kiss energy problems good-bye:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

One thing that I`ve never seen mentioned in regard to wind turbines, is the effect they will have on the climate.

Energy isn`t free, and if we are converting wind into electricity then we will be converting kinetic energy in the wind into electrical energy, but I've yet to see any research into what effect the removal of that kinetic energy will have on wind patterns and climate in general. I appreciate that a handful of wind turbines here or there isn`t going to make much of a difference, but it could if they were built in sufficient numbers.

If anyone has any links to research in this area I'd be very interested if you could post them here as this is a question that as far as I can tell the environmentalists have totally ignored.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

so if fusion is the way to go , is it clean and safe or cleaner and safer ?????? , i must admit to have not looked into it but sitting next to earth's version of the sun could be well interesting couldnt it :shrug: , ok so wind turbines maybe inefficient , but i reckon they look amazing , there are quite a few near me being constructed and i cant see the problem :tu:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

hmmm

being a nuclear safety bod - I might be biased somewhat ...

Clearly in my mind, if you want you aircon, internet, mod cons etc then wind power will not provide that. The nuclear option is in my opinion the only way forward, but thats not what the UK Govenment think - so expect to by buying your energy from France, Russia etc in the future (does that still make us a world force - nope !) .... I digress ...

You can spend days playing with facts and figures, doing energy balance and waste / polution calculations. However, just think how many wind turbines you need to say supply a city with power .....

Think of the power needed (created say by fossil fuel) to manufacture them ...

Think of the same power needed to smelt the metal in the first place

Thanks of the transport costs of moving them by road and then by sea ....

And then compare all that with their life time of operation and power output .... not so good !

That said, and I say this still as a pro-nuclear chap, the nuclear industry has done little to make itself more user-friendly. Nuc waste is still a problem and fusion is 10's of years away .....

seriously now .... lets get used to power cuts .. or being held to ransom over out power needs in the very near future ....

chow

Mark

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

p.s.

Think of the 'environment impact' and visual ameanity if you live near a wind farm - they are very loud (even if placed out to sea)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

IF we start to purchase our power from overseas I can easily see us being held to ransom on it.
Pay up or we turn your lights out!

Nuclear all the way......

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

funny , i had a feeling you might pop up :) , there was one thing i forgot to mention , the people living near the wind turbines are now complaining about the noise , mind you years ago they were complaining about the nuclear power station at the other end of town , ho hum life goes on

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

As far as I know fusion gives no radiation (but I guess it depends on the method, the one I'm thinking off is what happens in the sun), so if something goes wrong there will be a big bang but no poisoning (just everything in the area getting vapourised:erm: ) But explosions = energy so this is unavoidable.

The only other method that could produce more energy is matter-anti-matter reactions -but that's star trek.

Remember all life on the surface of the earth gets it's energy from the sun - so what better than lots of little suns.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I'm all for wind power - I think there's something quite beautiful about the turbines. If we need a huge number of them, why can we not build one or two huge offshore windfarms, far enough out not to bother anyone with the noise or view?

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Remember, the wind doesn't blow all the time either, so alot of the time the blades won't be turning

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I think we can't afford to choose one or the other as we need both methods to match the situations we have to deal with.

There are lots of small, populated islands off the coast of Britain where it would be uneconomic to build nuclear power stations but where wind power would be ideal.

Equally, given the electrical demands of cities, the current generation of wind turbines would not be able to provide the amount of power needed hence safe, nuclear power stations would be more appropriate.

We also need to develop a better National Grid with greater power-carrying capacity, greater flexibility in switching current so that locations can be supplied with power from a variety of sources and greater provision for dealing with power blackouts when demand is overly high or where a disaster has rendered power-generating or power-carrying equipment inoperative.

We also need to think about houses and other buildings having their own power generating capability e.g. solar power and setting some programme in place to educate the public about alternative power sources and strategies for when power blackouts occur. We also need to have a programme in place to help the vulnerable in society to deal with power outages.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

We already buy a lot of our power from EdF's Nuclear supplies, this was why there were problems this summer. EdF could not cool their reactors without boiling the rivers they used as the temperatures rose (boiled cod anyone).


This is why we have a resurgence of gas fired power. Quick start is availible.


But living next to a wind farm is like living next to an airport that is running all day.
I agree, living next to a nuclear power station is not something I would consider a risk, but even the Japanese have become more dubious over the last couple of years.


Cost and transmission loss. Look at the cost of Tokyos offshore airport. At present electricity does not cost enough to support the running costs of nuclear, as a result British Energy (the company) is in crisis. Coal is only just profitable, but AES is not doing well on its UK purchases which include Drax, the largest coal fired power station in the UK, which produces 30%+ of our energy requirements (i.e they are the market). How could the costs of building an offshore location plus the equipment for it compete?

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I admit I'm no expert, and I was basing that idea on you saying we would need about 6,000 more of them, rather than 30,000. I admit 30,000 would be a little harder to cope with, so failing that, surely there are other renewable methods we can use as well? And does anyone know for certain how many more we need?

How often are there any genuinely windless days in the Irish sea? I thought we had tons of wind out there. Additionally, I thought I read somewhere that photovoltaic cells are now effective even in cloudy situations. In time, could these not take some of the strain off coal/gas?

I think as well as being pro renewable, I am actively anti-nuclear because it seems unavoidable that once a nuke station shuts, a highly radioactive core has to remain on site for centuries. Trawsfynydd in North Wales is otherwise a beautiful part of the country, but it will be blighted for many lifetimes by the immovable remains of the old nuclear power station that was built there.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Fusion will fix that problem:)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I'm looking forward to it, it's one of those things which I always thought would prove I really was living in the future - along with videophones etc etc.

Problem is, it's always 'decades away', and I'm beginning to wonder if we'll see it in our lifetimes. :(

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Indeed:(, but nobody said harnassing the power of the stars would be easy

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Another possibility would be to develop hydro-electricity as we certainly get plenty of rain in this country and we are surrounded by water. It's also safer than nuclear powered systems.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

well , if not wind then why not wave , or is that no good as well , probably not , but you would think it would be as the waves are more constant than than wind or are they :shrug: , somehow i dont think fusion is going to be our saviour somehow , well at least not in the short term , we havent run out of coal yet have we , then why not start digging some more of it , create some jobs at the same time :) , or is that no good as well , maybe a better idea would be to save energy and obviate the need for more power stations whatever type they maybe :tu:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Coal produces pollution and waste too. Entire piles of it that have to be carved into landscapes, they then collapse on people.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

fair play i didnt say it was right i was just putting some options across , ok then oil , we have some left :)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

The problem with saying how long our fossil fuels will last is, they assume we won't find any more, of course, one day we will run out totally, but by then we might have heated the planet up so much we'd all be dead

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

fair comment , but is global warming all our fault or is it something that would have happened anyway ???????????? , sometimes i wonder , the latest one is about a hundred year winter as reported here http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...925784,00.html
is that our making as well or is it just a natural cycle :shrug:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

That's something I've always wondered.
All this CO2 that we're releasing from fossil fuels originially came from the atmosphere anyway :D

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

good point that , round and round we go where it stops god only knows :D :D :D

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

click here if you wanna go green!

http://www.npower.com/yourhome/green/juiceandwindpower


http://www.natwindpower.co.uk/

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

ahhh Paul ... pop up indeed, this is dear to my heart ,.,! :)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Blighted ? Ok may be you are right .... some would say they are blighted by Coal Spoil Heaps. At the end of the day society will need to decide what cost it is prepared to put up with vs its energy needs ..

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Now funny you should say that.I heard tonight on the news that we will be having a drought in the UK next year(I thought we had one now but perhaps that was last years)so maybe rain power isn't the answer.anyway are you thinking of dams?can't think anyone is going to want to live next door to one of them.or have I misunderstood?

Incog. :wavey:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

We do not have the technology to make fusion a feasable source of energy. You're probably thinking of fission.

Fusion is the fusing of two hydrogen (deuterium, which is hydrogen with an extra neutron) atoms to get helium and energy. We can do it, but it requires high temperatures and pressure. The amount of energy put into the system is more than we get out of it, so that isn't really good.

Fission is the splitting of uranium or other fissionable materials by bombarding it with a neutron. The neutron splits the atom into two parts, some neutrons, and some energy. The neutrons released bombard other atoms, and the process continues.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

In Canada, more than 55% of our energy comes from hydo electricity. We do have an advantage though. We have lots of rivers, dams, and falls that provide us with the ability to get hydro electricity. Plus, Ontario Hydro is the largest supplier of heavy water in the world. :)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Indeed Jerrek, but fusion is being researched in France it seems ;) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Fusion is being researched in many places in the world... I would, however, support Japan rather than France. Japan has a better infrastructure to support such a project.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

regardless of the location the important quote is:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

ok I'll 'call' you on that one Xaccers - in the poker sense btw;)

"fossil" fuel locked up ancient CO2 - putting it back 'now' is, apparently, the problem.:shrug:

- power stations based on trees/straw - now, could be another 'renewable' energy resource, to complement wind/wave/sun? - and no-one has mentioned waste fermenters, producing methane for burning, now - so long as it is just recycling, it should be ok?:)

- fusion - maybe in the future - now is more important?:erm:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

The problem is balance, yes it was originally in the atmosphere, plants used to it leave and produce oxygen, animals used the oxygen to eat the plants and put the carbon back in the air. Plants formed a balance with the animals so enough carbon is in the air for the plants and enough oxygen is in the air for the animals.

Humans are putting too much CO2 back in the air too quickly (or at least this is the idea) and there are less plants to counter it.

Places where balance has failed are deserts.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Actually, 61% of Canada's power is from hydro. 27% is from thermal energy sources. :D How's that for clean energy! :canada:

Manitoba - 99% of the power is hydro electricity
British Columbia - 98%
Quebec - 96%
Newfoundland - 96%
Yukon - 88%

But Ontario is 25%... We have a dozen nuclear reactors to assist since we probably use half of the electricity in Canada. :canada: :D

Good point. Fusion isn't yet ready, and won't be for at least 10 years.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

What can go wrong in 10 years that hasn't already?

I guess it boils down to money:

Put it all in fushion and hope it's a saviour
Or put it in expensive renewable projects that will delay the inevatable.

Such is the choice of our time :(

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I'd like to think 'renewable', meant just that, not just a "delay" - I'm not denying fusion a place, but there is a gap to fill between fossil running out & fusion kicking in?

- the project in France would have gone down better with me if "JET" had been expanded, as well?

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

I know - I was just trying to be dramatic :D

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

- and why shouldn't you - I'm thinking all the controversy about 'colour', whether you were 'strange', or just 'charming' - you say bosun - I say bo-selecta.

- and 'why not?':D


- cue 'cold fusion' conspiracy theories?.........

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

ah - quark, strangness and charm - always liked that Halkwind Album :dozey:

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
If people are a bit confused see here:
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-p...uide/quark.htm

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

this is what i was refering to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm
:)

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

Hmm. You may be being optimistic here. You are far too young to know about it, but in the 50s there were splash headlines in British newspapers about a fusion project called Zeta. It never succeeded. Speaking from memory, and I stand ready to be corrected here, the next big advance was the Russian Tokamak (sp?) design in the 70s (or 80s? - but still a while ago). And over 50 years on we still haven't got a practical design. It always seems to be jam tomorrow. Now, I'm not objecting to the research; I'm just not holding my breath.

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

anyone remember cold fusion on Tomorrow world !

Re: Wind v Nuclear
 

There's still people working on it especially, I think, in Japan. Do a Google search and you'll get plenty of hits. One of the original problems was, where have all the neutrons gone? The problem is that the fusion of 2 deuterons should give helium-3 and a neutron. As far as I recall, these neutrons were never found. (If they had been there, I definitely would have left the room!). I remember at the time that Harwell tried to detect them (and if anyone was capable of detecting them, Harwell was), but failed. As work is still continuing, I assume that some method of explaining this away must have been found.