does it make sense to go with a wind turbine these days?

[jeff262]

I don't know much about wind power i know i get $200 electric bills these days. I have four 30 foot tall golf course driving range net poles that i could set turbine up on. just a simple search of small turbines brings up 300 watts at 24 vdc for $500 or so. just curious if something like this is feasable to even use to suppliment power with..not sure how much is even lost trying to bring it up to 120vac. i live in one of the windiest states so thats not a problem just not sure if smaller turbines are a good or bad idea...my electric usage last month was 1733 Kwh $.10
any input would be great...i don't want to do more research if its a bad idea
thanks jeff

[PLMS]

Jeff,

Are you going to grid feed ? (to offset your power bill)
If so then you can do the math and work out how much say a 400W turbine will offset your bill (my last quarterly bill was $800AU BTW). You'll need data on the number of wind days where you are, and also the average speed needed for full output from your turbine. Then come up with a rubbery figure of have many hours a day the turbine will be working on average. You'll soon be able to see how much money it will save/offset.

If you grid feed you need to factor in the expense of the inverter as well as the turbine. Also maybe also find out the MTBF of the inverters, as if they only last say 3-5years then it's an expense that needs to be factored in long term.

If you don't grid feed then I'd guess you'll be charging battery banks and using the power when needed. Batteries last 5-10years at most. Again an expense that must be factored in. Also you still need an inverter to run mains equipment.

[jeff262]

no i will be grid feeding..i will look up the wind averages but i'm not sure where they measure it since i would only be 30 feet but the poles are on a ridge line which helps with the wind but really sucks for RC planes, except the zagi loves it. as for output most are 400-500watts max i was going with 300 since i figure most of them are over rated so i thought 300 would be more in realm of reason
jeff

[pldaniels]

I'm actually working on a small scale wind turbines here ( picowind.com , nothing there yet, but not long now ) which is going to be 10~50W output.

I have to say it's certainly quite an interesting field to be in and coming up with suitable generator designs at this scale is rather difficult due to the rapidly diminishing returns. Biggest difficulty is cramming in enough wire to get a decent output voltage at a sane rpm level.

Overall, the batteries/storage are actually the hardest part of the equation, would be nice to have something with the durability of Nickel-Iron without the poor energy density.

Paul.

[mark963]

http://www.rchotdeals.com/Products/silent_windmills/silent_windmills_home.html

[Beau0090_99]

Jeff,
Jay Leno had an article in Popular Mechanics last year where he installed one of those vertical squirrel cage turbines outside of his shop near LA. It gave a few statistics and there was a reference to where you could get them. When I get a chance I will try to look up the article and see where he got it from.

You could also contact Xcel and see if they have some information on this, as I believe they are taxed by the state to provide information about turbine energy production to consumers. The U of M (Mechanical Enginneering Dept, institute of Technology)might be a good resource too.

Good Luck,
Curtis

[jeff262]

ok now lets sayi have a turbine that is producing 150 watts, on average for lets say 20 days a month at 12 hours a day..so 150 watts, 12 hours a day, 20 days. how would i now compare this to the electric bill to see my saving, i know the kwh the power company uses and watts are not a simple conversion so i don't know what to do from here

[Tomapowa]

I hope to put up one of these some time this fall... my neighbor has one, and is a distributor as well...

http://www.skystreamenergy.com/

http://www.windenergy.com/documents/spec_sheets/3-CMLT-1338-01_Skystream_spec.pdf

http://www.rvfunproducts.com/skystream-37-land-240v-60-hz-split-phase-wind-generator-p-1401.html
Towers are extra... as well as foundation work...

[PLMS]

ok now lets say I have a turbine that is producing 150 watts, on average for lets say 20 days a month at 12 hours a day..so 150 watts, 12 hours a day, 20 days. how would i now compare this to the electric bill to see my saving, i know the kwh the power company uses and watts are not a simple conversion so i don't know what to do from here

I hate doing any math on-line as it's not my forte but here it is.

150W for an hour is 0.15kWh output.

150Wx12 is 1.8kWh per day. (12 hours of good wind)

1.8x20 is the monthly offset, 36kWh.

If each kWh costs you 20c then the offset is $7.20

Umm. I'd not be bothering myself :-)


kWh info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-hour

[PLMS]

Another way of looking at it...

150W is approximately the energy use of two standard light bulbs. You could get the same offset or reduction in power bill by turning off un-needed lights or fitting sensor lights. Also a change to CFL's if you haven't already would save more energy than the 150W turbine would make back for you.

My 2c worth...

PS. Heres attached a PDF of our unit. It has some kWh v's windspeed graphs that may be of use.

PSS. They are quite noisy in operation !

[Ron W3FJW]

Why not check with your local power company. They're the best source of info for your part of the country. The Feds have a rebate program for wind power & solar system installation as well.

[vintage1]

Frankly, wind turbines are complete disasters.

In Europe they survive because they are subsidised..electricity bought from them is about 3-4 times the going rate, and the Danish experience was that beyond about 5% of the grid, the output was so variable they need more gas powered stuff on hot standby (basically turning at idling speed) to compensate for when the wind dropped. Overall they burnt MORE fuel as a result. The cost - borne by the grid companies - of increased grid to allow a lot of highly variable power sources to feed a relatively constant load, was also not borne by the wind farmers..

General results are that they run at about 30% load factor on average, and probably spend at least 15% of the time doing nothing.

As an individual, in the US, be careful. The grid may refuse to build powerlines to you, or charge more than its worth. I think they are required to take your power though.

AS I say, do your costings at 25% average load factor..most people get 27%-30% - and cost in the extra work needed. And talk long and hard with the power companies as well.

For sure Barack is a lot greener thatn GWB, but be careful. Wind turbines are effective - like nuclear plant - over a multi-decade life span. All the cost is in construction, and that means that there is a delicate balance between interest rates on money borrowed to build, and effective value of electricity generated. Both of those are politcal issues.

E.g. if inflation goes mad as a result of quantitative easing., interest rates may rocket again. Likewise if the government runs out of cash, subsidies for inefficient - though 'green' - technologies may get reduced.

To be frank with you, I think the whole things has too many variables in it. Europe went green mad, and built thousands of these damned things., Only now are we realising that the overall cost of them is huge, and they haven't really delivered on the green credentials. To make them work effectively, you need to combine with vast amounts of energy soirage - think reverse pumping the Hoover dam when the wind is blowing hard in Washington state, and consider the amount of wires needed, and the cost of that!

Much better to get planning permission for a 3GW nuclear plant. Smaller, neater, more cost effective, and very low carbon.

[Ron W3FJW]

Actually, so far they are quite successful in the US.

[stripe157]

Actually, so far they are quite successful in the US.

give us some stats please... or some links where I can find them

[PLMS]

Much better to get planning permission for a 3GW nuclear plant. Smaller, neater, more cost effective, and very low carbon.

Yep, build a small thermonuclear converter in the backyard (0.000000003GW).
Basically three solar panels... Much more reliable.

PS. You can make a very small alternator for a wind turbine from a surplus low kV brushless motor, if you want to play with the idea. I suspect you blokes know that already. Fairly pointless though, unless you want to take a week to charge a LiPo.

[podavis]

A couple of good links:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/wind/wind.html

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/publications.html

[Ron W3FJW]

give us some stats please... or some links where I can find them

I can't give any particular stats as this is not a subject I make it a habit to keep track of.
CA has a few large wind power sites most notably at Tehapatchi(sp?) pass, also a geothermal plant in N CA large enough to power the LA area, there are windpower systems in TX, & a lot under construction in MN. There are a few in my own state, WA, along the Columbia Gorge. "Green Power" as it's called here is available for .01 per KWH in addition to the normal electrical rate to help subsidize it.
Wind power is getting a big boost in the "windy" states that have no power generating capabilities of their own.
I'm sure if you're interested enough, a little research using Mr Google will turn up a lot of information.

[PLMS]

This thread is becoming a bit political, but heck it was a fairly open topic anyway.

I've noticed that the government body's and the greens seem to praise wind power, but power companies and independent assessment groups seem a lot more conservative.
I think the issue is really about energy storage, or lack of it. Wind power could be great, but until we can store the energy from a windy night to use the next day (or the next week) it will never be as effective as it could be.

PS. Wind turbines by the hundreds are being installed here too in Oz, but the benefits are still unclear.

[Ron W3FJW]

I think you'll have good luck with them mr. sneezy. They're expensive at the outset but so is a coal powered or nuclear plant.
Storage isn't too much of a problem these days as some are using the power to generate and store heat in metalic salts and the heat used to power closed circuit steam turbines.
Others are feeding the electricity generated directly into the grid.

In fact, these little brushless motors we all use can be used as 3 phase power generators (alternators) as well with a bit of tinkering with the "props". Rectify the output and use it to charge your Lipos during a windy day at the field.

[pldaniels]

Actually, the brushless motors we have are a bit tricky to get power out of since they're wound for a fairly high kV.

I find if you want to start somewhere useful, you need at least something in the order of 100~200kV, preferrably 60kV would be awfully nice (I've seen some large motors on HobbyCity for ~$99 that might work).

Biggest problem is that to generate managable output you need a lot of turns to get the voltage up to at least 2~3V (beyond that you can start to use switch mode boosters to get up to 12V or more).

Paul.

[pldaniels]

I should point out that with something like a GWS 2208 and a 12" prop spinning in a gale, I get enough volts out to light up a few LEDs in parallel, Try starting with something in the 30xx or 40xx sizes and pick the one with the smallest kV you can. Also, I use 1A schottky diodes for the rectification (6 of them), since the reverse voltage is fairly low they'll be fine, the good thing is that the schottky's have low forward voltage drop.

Paul.

[Tomapowa]

As an individual, in the US, be careful. The grid may refuse to build powerlines to you, or charge more than its worth. I think they are required to take your power though.

Yes, they are required to purchase actually... from home owners like myself too. Federal regulations (specifically, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, or PURPA) require utilities to connect with and purchase power
from small wind energy systems. In my local area here in the Northeast US (RI), we've had two very successful large-scale wind turbine projects... I only wish they built more... and it might just happen in the near future if all goes well. These two projects will definitely open some eyes...

http://www.portsmouthabbey.org/page/2181

http://www.aaer.ca/page.asp?intNodeID=38978

http://portsmouthrienergy.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/b42/sets/72157614009761526/

[Accu157]

Given the location is good, yeah, it makes sense to get one. Frankly, I do not like some of the ones available. Too expensive for what you get, almost no matter what, until you get a reasonable sized one, like 15-20 feet in diameter. Given their nature, I don't see why one cannot be amateur built these days. It'd have to be hollow molded somehow, I cant see a foam core lasting more than a year. While very inventive and sometimes practical, the current DIY versions that are available online are excellent from a price point, but they still do not have the efficiency that we as modelers are capable of making. I haven't seen anyone pushing for advances in that area (amateur wise only. Engineer wise, they are spot on) How hard could it be (aside from the math) to come up with a Jart like windmill design? Use a guyed Rohn 25 tower as the mast. If math needs to be done, or finite point analysis... somebody can do it, just don't look at me.

I bet amateurs could come up with a two bladed or three bladed design (on here) with each blade 12 feet long, or 3-4 meters.

Here's what we're up against:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0oBGo0-W4

[pldaniels]

For me, the biggest problem is the generator. I've got a few designs I'm working on here at about 100mm diameter but they're slow and cumbersome to build, certainly wouldn't want to do this for a living, that's where the existing, low cost, prefabricated outrunners could be very nice.

Paul.

[Ron W3FJW]

Here's some interesting designs.I like the vertical axis types myself and I'm always on the lookout for a fairly small one for my RV. But as you said, there's no reason some of the members here couldn't come up with some great ideas.

Wiki on Turbines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbines)

Vertical Turbines (http://www.cleanfieldenergy.com/site/sub/p_we_overview.php)

Some Vertical Axis turbines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCfEq851cxs&feature=related)

[BushmanLA]

Rather than storing the excess energy in chemical (Battery) form, we should try and come up with some cheap alternatives.

Heat/Cold?
mechanical potential?
Gravity?
pressure?

For example, rather than try and store the extra energy in a big bank of batteries, why not use it to pump water into a tank up high someplace, then when you need the energy back let the water down and spin a turbine with it?

Of course, since gravity is such a weak force you would need lots of water, but you get the idea.

Use the excess energy to pressurize a vessel get it back via releasing the air.
Also, do the pressurizing outside and the depressurizing inside, and you can use the heat exchange as air conditioning.

If we could get a decent cheap insulator and a material that has a high specific heat, you could just store the excess energy as heat, then steam turbine it back out when you need it.


We need cheap, small, low maintenance energy storage, and our current battery tech just isn't there.

[pldaniels]

I was thinking of the same thing for the last few years Bushman, the water idea was initially thought out but then I had problems with evaporation/contamination etc, then I had another idea, because there's a lot of mining shafts around here... I thought it'd be interesting to have a mass of lead/rock in a shaft that's pulled up from the bottom. Some of these shafts are over 100m deep. Nice thing is, if the cable snaps, then it's moderately safe as it'll just fall to the bottom.

Paul.

[pldaniels]

Oh yes, I had contemplated the compressed air idea too, the trick would be to try an get it through a phase-change for maximal energy storage, however the efficiency would probably be woeful (though it'd be great for producing large amounts of hot/cold :) )

Paul

[BushmanLA]

(though it'd be great for producing large amounts of hot/cold :) )

Paul


Wouldn't be so bad if you scavenged all that waste heat for your water or heating your home etc.


Am I doing this right?

If I have a 1kg weight, that is 1 meter high, and I can get 100% of the energy when it falls:

1kg*9.8m/s*1m = 9.8 Joules of energy
9.8Joules = 9.8 Watt seconds

An 20mA LED in a 3V system will draw (3*.02) = 0.06 Watts

So 9.8 Watt seconds / 0.06 Watts is 163.3 seconds.

That seems pretty lame as expected.

So to power a 40 Watt light bulb for an hour you would need.

40Watts * 3600 seconds = 144 kJoules

or 14,400 kg, raised up 10 meters.

or about 3900 gallons of water raised up 10 meters.

Thats pretty lame.....

[BushmanLA]

Oh here's a nice find

http://www.combro.co.uk/nigelh/diver/tank.html

a 12 liter tank at 230 bars of pressure has 1.2Mega Joules!

Thats enough to run a 40Watt bulb for 8.6 hours :D

[smh20502]

Didn't read the entire page on the above link.

230 bar? that's over 3300 psi...How are you going to pressurize the tank? What facility are you going to use to make up for the efficiency loss of the compressor?

[Alison F]

I've always wondered why gyms can't produce electricity? Lots of super fit people burning off all of those calories, and generating electricity at the same time. I find it criminal that these places use electricity at all.

Wind turbines. Good maybe, except when you consider the energy and resources required to build the things commercially.

There did used to be alot of DIY sites about though, using things like car alternators. The vertical darrieus turbines look good though, simple to build too without complicated blades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbine

I looked into this about 5-years ago and tried to build one, but it flew itself to bits. The stresses are more intense that you initially think.

[andrew b]

Oh here's a nice find

http://www.combro.co.uk/nigelh/diver/tank.html

a 12 liter tank at 230 bars of pressure has 1.2Mega Joules!

Thats enough to run a 40Watt bulb for 8.6 hours :D

The first drop or two of water that comes out of the tank and you will have a couple of drops less than 12 liters and no pressure :p

[vintage1]

I just want to repeat a point. Wind power is not competitive with coal,oil,gas or nuclear without a subsidy, that may be removed at a change of government policy. Be careful.

[Brandano]

It's not even competitive with solar power. Wind power is 2nd hand solar power, it's only simpler to handle. come to think of it, fossil fuels are 2nd hand solar power as well.

[soft2]

It's not even competitive with solar power. Wind power is 2nd hand solar power, it's only simpler to handle. come to think of it, fossil fuels are 2nd hand solar power as well.
Pretty much every form of energy we have is second (or third, etc) hand solar. That includes hydro as well as Alison's idea of harnessing gym fitness energy.

Wind energy is more cost effective than solar in places that have above average wind. It competes quite favorably with fossil fuels when you factor in the true cost of such energy sources. What surprises me is that solar is not significantly more efficient than it was 50+ years ago. We can convert electricity to light quite easily, but not the other way!

[Ron W3FJW]

Plants convert solar quite efficiently.... now if we could only run wires out to the lawn or bushes...... :P

A group at MIT is close to making cheap solar cells commercially available. Thin film types printed with ink jet printers. They hope to have them on the market for less than $1 watt possibly the third or 4th quarter this year..
I would like some for my RV.

[pldaniels]

What's annoying though is that we've been hearing that sort of rhetoric the last decade or more :(

When I can go down to the local solar shop and buy a panel of these cells or whatever and pay even $2/watt then I'll believe it.

[Ron W3FJW]

Sorry, it's not MIT. It's the University of Washington.

http://solarcellsinfo.com/blog/archives/2020

[jj604]

Indeed, Paul. I put more faith in your mine shaft energy store! I suggest folks plow through some old copies of Popular Mechanics or Science and see all the clever things in prototype form that didn't come to pass. :)

If I had a buck for every University Research story that promised cheap ground breaking new solutions based on what some researcher had just managed to create a minute sample of in the lab using very large amounts of money and expensive equipment it would be nice.

I quote from the story at http://solarcellsinfo.com/blog/archives/2020:

"His group has made several versions of the polymer solar cells, and is in the process of scaling it up to make a prototype for large-area use."

This in the same page as:

"The “large area” part of that equation is especially important, Jen said, as energy experts have estimated that solar cells covering 150 square miles in the Southwest working at 10 percent efficiency could generate enough electricity to power the entire United States."

Interpretation: We have got this really exciting new stuff working in the lab and just imagine if we could make it as cheaply as Plastic Wrap. We can't see why not so lets just multiply the effect.

Bit that's mising: We are lab scientists and haven't got the faintest idea about what industrialisation of processes and manufacturing scale actually means.
(No criticism of these guys. It's just not their business. I work in a Uni and know and love them.)

Let's hope it does work eventually but you won't be buying this stuff at Bunnings/Sears/Home Depot in the Xmas sales. Remember OELD displays and electronic paper? They are coming but a lot slower than the spruikers told us they would.

What's annoying though is that we've been hearing that sort of rhetoric the last decade or more :(

When I can go down to the local solar shop and buy a panel of these cells or whatever and pay even $2/watt then I'll believe it.

[Tomapowa]

give us some stats please... or some links where I can find them

Stats?... here ya go....

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_statistics.html

http://www.cat.pinellas.k12.fl.us/legacy/ISTF/2005_2006/05-1228/Wind%20turbine%20stats.html

[soft2]

Sorry, it's not MIT. It's the University of Washington.

http://solarcellsinfo.com/blog/archives/2020
Actually it was MIT (in addition to U of W and several other universities with advanced materials science/ nonotech depts working on the same thing). If I remember correctly, some guys from MIT and UC Santa Barbara launched a start-up that is already in production making thin-film solar panels somewhere near MIT. In 2000 a scientist at UCSB won a nobel prize for his work developing nanotech polymer film solar collectors. It usually takes 10 years from invention to mature enough to mfg and market. That would be around the end of this year or so...

[Ron W3FJW]

I recall the story about the startup company at MIT. That was the one I was originally posting about but could not remember the name of the company and my efforts with Mr Google left me with no joy. UW came up instead. Do you happen to have a link?

[TheNightowl]

Here are a couple of links about a company that is set up to produce thin-film photovoltaic cells. The original story in Technology News: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19369/?a=f
The company's home page: http://www.heliovolt.net/
And the company's press release stating they are scheduled for full-scale production this year. http://www.heliovolt.net//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=142&Itemid=95

[Ron W3FJW]

Great! Sounds like I may be able to paste a bunch on my RV late this year or next.. Use adhesive backed copper tape to join them without the drag of the conventional panels.

[jj604]

Well I know I'm going to sound like a wet blanket (and I really do want to see this stuff work - it would be great) but I wouldn't buy the adhesive tape yet.

If you read the press releases carefully AND explore their web site thoroughly, you won't find a single indication this stuff is anywhere near production - much less "late this year". There's lots of stuff about how wonderful their senior exec are and what a great invention this is BUT what they have actually done is raise $100million in venture capital. This is admirable, necessary and nice but nowhere is there any concrete evidence they are about to go into industrial scale production any time soon. I would be very happy to be proved wrong but wanting it to happen doesn't make it so.

Great! Sounds like I may be able to paste a bunch on my RV late this year or next.. Use adhesive backed copper tape to join them without the drag of the conventional panels.

[Ron W3FJW]

I already have the tape and with quite a few billions, if not a trillion or more, going into green energy in the US this year, I think it's going to get off the ground. Don't know about AU though.

[vintage1]

Plants convert solar quite efficiently..

Between 0.1% and 1%

Solar direct up to around 20%.

Check all facts here

www.withouthotair.com

[vintage1]

What's annoying though is that we've been hearing that sort of rhetoric the last decade or more :(

When I can go down to the local solar shop and buy a panel of these cells or whatever and pay even $2/watt then I'll believe it.


The going rate for power generation kit is about $2000 a KW for nuclear, about $8-1000 for windpower (AVERAGE power delivered, not PEAK power, so often quoted as ecobollox), and a fair bit less for fossil plants, BUT the fuel cost is significant. You use about ten times more concrete steel and energy to actually make a windmill, too.


The other relevant fact is the power density per unit surface area.

the scale of alternative energy uses up maybe 20-30% of land area.

[Ron W3FJW]

You use about ten times more concrete steel and energy to actually make a windmill, too.

Maybe true overall. But a windmill will only blow down, not up.. Nor will they release any radiation like Three Mile Island did a few decades ago.

[soft2]

I recall the story about the startup company at MIT. That was the one I was originally posting about but could not remember the name of the company and my efforts with Mr Google left me with no joy. UW came up instead. Do you happen to have a link?
Konarka. Already in production.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21574/

[Ron W3FJW]

That's the one. Thanks. I was hoping for 100W panels but guess the 25W panels will have to do for now. Gonna have to find a price on them. None mentioned on the site. Or distributers.

[vintage1]

Maybe true overall. But a windmill will only blow down, not up.. Nor will they release any radiation like Three Mile Island did a few decades ago.

OTOH per KWh generated windmills have killed about three times as many people as nuclear power.

You have to balance a very small amount of long term radiation against a very much larger cost, and a very much larger release of long term CO2. A Lot of concrete in windmills.

If you take the hysteria out of nuclear power, and look at the facts, its simply the best thing we have right now.

If you look a 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Windscale and Bhopal, in every case you find shocking disregard of safety standards, shocking lack of understanding in operational staff and shocking failure to follow procedures.

Bhopal's death toll far exceeded ANY nuclear accident.

The French, who occasionally take these things seriously, as well as the USA and Canada and many other countries, have since TMI, managed to operate a large number of nuclear power plants without any serious incidents or loss of life.

[TheNightowl]

You have to balance a very small amount of long term radiation against a very much larger cost, and a very much larger release of long term CO2. A Lot of concrete in windmills.


I'm not as familiar with this subject as you seem to be, but there are some issues that I look at, that I don't see being addressed here. I live in what is jokingly referred to as "flyover" country. Out here, the population density is low enough that individual farms and small communities could be powered by wind power on a very small scale (to even single residence) grid.

Do you have any idea how much concrete and steel is actually used in a nuclear reactor facility? I'd like to see a more accurate comparison between how many thousands of cubic yards of concrete and tons of steel are actually used in a nuclear facility compared to real numbers for how many windmills could be built with the equivalent materials. I found this on the web: How much concrete and steel in a nuclear power station? The Nuclear Energy Institute claim (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=1525) 400,000 cubic yards (306,000 cubic meters) of concrete and 60,000 tons (67,000 tonnes) of steel in a 1 GW rated nuclear power station. http://timjervis.blogspot.com/2007/05/co2-pollution-from-nuclear-construction.html (Funnily enough, this was an arugment to show that CO2 byproducts of building a nuclear plant were dismissable.)

You could set a lot of small windmils with all the steel used in those high pressure welded pipes and all the concrete for those containment vessels. At a glance, if you used a ton of steel per windmill, you could build 60,000 windmills with the steel used in a large-scale nuclear plant.

Then, there are savings in transmission costs over more local distribution related to large scale distribution from a multi-megawatt generating station. No need for hundreds of miles of 36,000 volt transmission lines (and steel pylons and concrete pads for those steel pylons to support those transmission lines, each of which might be roughly equal to a windmill itself!)

Finally, I'm willing to pay more for wind power than for the long term radiation exposure and risks of cancer or catastrophic event from nuclear power. There is no "balance" as far as I'm concerned. A windmill will never melt down and spread radioactive fallout hundreds of miles to the east of me.

[Tomapowa]

Good points.... and lets not forget about other long-term "BY-PRODUCTS"... (i.e. spent fuel rods/storage)

[Brandano]

Long term radiation exposure.... I agree that stuff is nasty. We ought to shut down the sun. And low power fluorescent lights as well (not to mention all the mercury in them).

[Brandano]

Good points.... and lets not forget about other long-term "BY-PRODUCTS"... (i.e. spent fuel rods/storage)
We dig up uranium from under a large rock. That stuff is already radioactive, and has been pretty much since the formation of earth itself. We can just stuff it back under the same rock and be in the same situation we started from, though the spent material is overall less than the unrefined material that it was produced from. Incidentally, the earth's radioactive background has always been pretty high, even before people discovered radioactivity and its uses.
There's radioactive gases in volcanic rocks and thermal waters, we have a fusion reactor blasting the earth surface continuously, we have a lot of naturally occurring radioactivity. One of the possible explanations for the amazing variety of life on the planet is that the high background radioactivity makes it a place where random variation of the genetic code are more likely to occur.

[mark963]

Radon seems to be a more immediate radio active threat. Many homes are an order of magnitude over the background radiation level because of it.

[Ron W3FJW]

I find it ironic, is that a good word here, that we've survived all that background radiation, volcano gasses, and unrefined uranium ore laying under a rock for millions of years, and it's only been the last few decades that it's become any kind of a threat to humankind.
Chalk another one up for us..

I find a certain amount of beauty in windmill farms vs reactors and containment vessels and large unproven salt caves, but then again, none of them are in my backyard.

[Brandano]

OTOH per KWh generated windmills have killed about three times as many people as nuclear power..
To balance things a bit, I think you are only taking into account nuclear accidents on civilian operated nuclear plants. Nuclear accidents with a military origin (even excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki) have tallied up a few more deaths. Even then, the tally is much lower than that of road accidents and similar events. And clean power has its own rather high tally of innocent victims as well. Overall, I think the Vajont dam accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam) killed more people than Chernobyl
and didn't even manage to start producing power.

[HELModels]

Dont forget wave and tides(lunar). I'm a big fan of those oscillating air column wave powered things. The Wells turbine spins in one direction - uses a symmetrical foil. The wave forces air up the column, pressure builds, turbine spins. When the wave retreats, the air exits, the turbine keeps spinning in the same direction.

[vintage1]

Lots of interest. I will once again say if you are really concerned about energy policy, buy David Mackays book - due to be released in the states in May

See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/0954452933

and www.withouthotair.com

Its in two halves. The firsts is a ' I assume you don't do science or maths, so lets do the minimum' and the last section is' if you do do the maths, these are the calculations and the data I used'.

David is an inveterate vegetarian cycling greeny professor of Physics, but when even he admits that renewables don't really cut the mustard, you realise that he is - unlike most uber Greens, also honest, intelligent, and capable of counting beyond ten without taking his socks off.

David's thrust is merely to explore the feasibility of a zero carbon economy: He doesn't really go near the costs.

I met him (online, and finally at the book launch) whilst pursuing a patrallel execrcise, trying to identify the actual costs involved in a zero carbon economy.

My thrust was not only from an ecological point of view..but also from a pragmatic point of view: apart from trying to reduce carbon emissions, I also wanted a source of fuel supply that - in the case of N Europe - did not lead to massive funds transfers out of the developed west into - well let's be polite and say - hands associated with extreme militant religious views.

So some of his potential solutions - like using large parts of north african desert - VERY large parts - to create a solar energy farm piped undersea to Europe, did not stack up in my book: for a start the costs involved in the transmission - very high voltage undersea DC cables do not come cheap..Secondly it places a huge resource essentially in a place where it cant be defended, and whose inhabitants might or might not decide to cut the cables if they felt so inclined. Nuclear is often cited as a highly desirable terrorist target, but lets face it, the installations are small, easily secured and defended,and in the countries whose interests they serve, and built like bunkers.

Windmills and direct solar - especially in deserts - are probably the second and third best bets, after nuclear, but the low energy density of them means that to make a substantial contribution requires a massive land or sea area to be turned from e.g. wilderness into an industrial landscape. Hardly 'ecological' ;)

Whereas the foot print of the nuclear power station is extremely small, and you only need about 100 of them to cover the entire United Kingdom power wise for ALL energy needs. Such carbon fuels as you cant do without could be synthesised from surplus power when demand was low..

My final argument goes like this.

IF, for reasons of climate change or from reasons of security of supply and global independence, a country decides not to use fossil fuel, THEN it is almost impossible to do without at least some nuclear power.
IF some nuclear power is needed, then the issues surrounding it - security, safety and waste management - have to be addressed.

IF those issues have to be addressed anyway, why use a more costly, and less practical solution that uses up land and sea space like you wouldn't believe, at all?

Leaving aside the hysteria, nuclear power comes out (on my criteria) as the clear and only real winner: There's probably enough fuel to last 1000 years at today's population levels, and if we cant get fusion going in that time, we don't deserver to survive anyway.

You may feel that covering the landscape with expensive solar panels and windmills is worth the peace of mind of not have a couple of thousand tons of highly radioactive waste* in a mineshaft somewhere isolated: But if you are interested in the numbers behind the politics, get reading up.


* that anyway might get reused at a later date.

[TheNightowl]

Leaving aside the hysteria, nuclear power comes out (on my criteria) as the clear and only real winner: There's probably enough fuel to last 1000 years at today's population levels, and if we cant get fusion going in that time, we don't deserver to survive anyway.

But herein lies another part of MY argument. Why are we facing chasing the dregs of yet another polluting, finite resource, and stating that the best short term option is to invest in building an infrastructure to support... a polluting, finite resource? Are we to breathe a sigh of relief that we no longer have to worry about peak oil, and we can let our grandchildren worry about peak urianium?

For my part, the near-term goal is not a zero-carbon economy, but a low-carbon economy. And the low-energy density of current techology for gathering solar energy in whatever form it is currently stored in (i.e., sunlight, wind, biofuel) is a problem that can be as readily attended to as the problems of security and radiation and waste management from nuclear. With not nearly such dire consequences in the event of failure to find the right solution.

I just happen to actually believe that the energy (if you'll pardon the expression) given to purusing a techology we KNOW we will abandon when better alternatives are found is a waste of that energy, and the better alternatives, since we are already convinced of their existence, should be the ones being pursued.

Nightowl

[Tomapowa]

Wow... I think every one needs to read the very first post again. I do not know how we got off on this tangent (discussing how a "country" can go "green"), but in any case, I myself plan to rid myself from paying for grid-provided electricity entirely. Through my estimations and my "personal" turbine specs, I should be able to reduce my dependency of sucking power off the grid by close to 75% (possibly 130% if my town allows me to install a slightly larger turbine... else I will have to go with a hybrid solar/wind solution). Imagine the power company sending "you" a check every month! That's my goal, same as I think it was for the original poster. :D

[vintage1]

But herein lies another part of MY argument. Why are we facing chasing the dregs of yet another polluting, finite resource, and stating that the best short term option is to invest in building an infrastructure to support... a polluting, finite resource? Are we to breathe a sigh of relief that we no longer have to worry about peak oil, and we can let our grandchildren worry about peak urianium?



Good question with a simple answer.

Because you want you grandchildren to be here at all. Basically.

Point1. The universe is not renewable. All energy sources will in time run down.

Point 2. Civilisation as we know it depends on an energy level about 10 times what is achievable with so called 'renewable' energy. There is an irreducible relationship between the area of land a person needs to support him and his standard of living, if you take fossil/nuclear out. There are some interesting balances in there, but the best you can do is energy intensive farming where you have water, and solar power where you do not and its hot, and give up where its frozen! Its only by the use of synthetic fertilisers amd fungicides, herbicides and insecticides that we are currently able to actually produce the food that we do. Those chemicals take energy to make.

Point 3. Coal lasted the UK effectively from inception to peak coal just 200 years. Oil has only lasted 100 years.For nuclear to last 1000 years is a complete luxury! 1000 years ago we (UK) had a population 10%-15% of what it is today.

Point 4. Humanity as homo sapiens is not much more than 100,000 years old. WE only started using metals about 4000 years ago. If you look at mankind's history it has been close to extinction many times. Parts of the world that are desert today, were decent arable land (middle east and N Africa) till people cut the trees down and overgrazed them. Mezo-America is full of abandoned cities, where for some reason or other. civilisations died out and moved on. The last great global warming - the end of the ice age - lost many bits of inhabited land to rising sea levels. There are neolithic remains under the North Sea.

Point 5. All nuclear power does is hasten the natural decay of radioactive elements already present in the earth. There is more radioactivity in the ash from a coal power station than in the average low level waste from a nucler power station. For example. By using nuclear fuel we are only slightly increasing te rate of natural decay: the sum total of radioactive elements is, and will always continue, to decrease in any case. WE simply do it faster and nearer the surface of the planet , and get something useful out of it, ahats all.


Nothing is permanent is this world, everything changes. There are no final solutions. We have to make best use of what we have, to get along.

The towns cities that 90% of Western people live in, are entirely unsustainable without a massive per capita energy input to them, in terms of growing the food they need, processing and transporting it, generating the housing and the infrastructure. The goods and products they (think they) need to survive. WE could possibly drop that energy by 50% if we adopted simpler lifestyles, but we cant drop it 90%. Everything you own, everything you eat,everything in the urban world, takes energy to make. Even grass takes energy to grow. Cities are entirely parasitic entities by and large, net consumers, not net producers of anything, especially energy.

Drop the energy and the cities collapse and people starve. Its that simple.

That brings me back to the original question: If you want your grandchildren to survive, they need energy. If you want the population to not suffer a 90% collapse, you need energy way in excess of an 'organic/sustainable/lowtech' type scenario. I.e. that the actual incident sunlight is converted into usable energy at sort of plant type efficiencies.

If you setp up and COVER the land and sea with every form of so called 'renewable' energy so you can tap that nice fusion reactor in the sky, called the sun, then maybe if you devote the entire effort of civilisation to doing it, and most of the landmass with some form of energy collection, you might just sustain the current population densities.

Or in the case of the US, build about 1000 small footprint nuclear power stations, and relax for at least 100 years (that's as long as oil has lasted) and buy time to build our own nice fusion reactors, so we can have portable suns dotted all over the planet doing what suns do, making energy from hydrogen etc. No pollution, and all the radiation where you want it, as heat.

The contribution of nuclear energy to overall radiation is less than 1% in this country. 30% is 'natural radon' which continues, especially in combination with smoking, to be the no 1 source of death from radiation..

You receive more radiation from a single x-ray, or a transatlantic flight, than you probably do from the entire worlds nuclear industry in 50 years.