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:)