Wind turbines - can be DIY made?

[Peter Parry]

Don't worry, in an urban environment you would be extraordinarily lucky to generate 20W in total overnight.

20W makes a real difference.

The companies buy it for more than they sell it at? Given a bit of cable and a tolerant neighbour that could be a really good scam.

You mean subsidies?

Govmint subsidies - are these not the things the greenwashers are always complaining about nuclear power stations getting?

The most important being that decentralised power is an absolutely essential component of anti-nuclear paranoia. The problem for the card carrying CND members who run the ecogroups is that electricity has a number of advantages over other fuels, but lots of electricity = nuclear generation. They won't have that - it's against their religion. So you have to have to try to manipulate the image and price (through subsidies) of locally generated electricity to make it look good no matter how inane it may be.

[AJH]

You mean the Courage one?

AJH

[Andy Hall]

Exactly.

Both things worthless and a blot on the landscape...

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think that is entirely correct.

The simple answer for our energy needs is go nuclear and go electric.

BUT people equate nuclear power stations with Hiroshima, and that's that. never mind that the vast majority of nuclear waste is probably so low level you could stuff it in your pillow and live to be a hundred, and that fuel grade fissile material is a huge step away from weapons grade material..thats all TOO DIFFICULT for people to understand, but a windmill. Thats just about within their grasp. AND its a huge symbol of how green they are, which a concrete dome on the seashore is not.

[David Hansen]

On 15 Oct 2006 13:09:20 -0700 someone who may be [e-mail] wrote this:-

It is not an either/or question. Both are needed.

In the sort of simplistic terms beloved by some, no and no. The more complicated answer is the electronic ones don't and most of the disc ones don't. Some disc ones don't have a ratchet mechanism and will run backwards.

On a small scale additional export metering is not necessary. The precise way of measuring depends on the purchaser and there are still a few institutional things to resolve.

See my first reply.

Power curves are readily available for inspection of a number of turbines. If that is the cut-in speed then it is similar to larger turbines.

That's good. The electricity generated can be sold to others.

It is something to consider with one's eyes open. Are all the bulbs in the house energy saving? How is water heated? It is cheaper to save electricity than produce it. At current prices a local wind turbine is a long term financial investment. However, it will reduce one's carbon dioxide footprint within roughly six months, assuming reasonable wind conditions (which should be measured before installing one).

There are other things to do first though, solar water heating being one example.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:11:20 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

Small steps made often enough by enough people are indeed how real differences are often made.

Some do, others don't.

This isn't a surprise, the price a company pays for electricity may be way above what it sells it for. That is an extremely basic fact in the way the electricity system currently operates.

The money I was talking about comes from bill payers, via government schemes. The amount of money that comes from bill payers to the nuclear "industry" is vastly greater. For example, until recently electricity suppliers in Scotland had to take every unit of electricity that Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce, whether they wanted to or not. Nuclear also gets direct government subsidies, unlike onshore wind, including being bailed out of going bankrupt recently.

Government does invest in new forms of generation. That includes offshore wind, wave and tidal generation at the moment. Offshore wind will probably soon be moved into the same position as onshore wind has been for some time.

Nuclear has never got off the subsidy habit, despite being with us for a long time.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:44:09 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

We have tried that before. It ended in white elephants like Torness.

Even ignoring the waste issue, nuclear stations are large and inflexible. There are so-far untested claims that recent improvements in engineering may improve the flexibility a little. Large and inflexible stations are either on or off. To match this with a variable demand means having other places round and about to export the electricity and promoting night time use of electricity.

Why?

Do many people? I'm sure there are some, but I'm not sure there are many of them.

Most waste is fairly low level. However, that does not mean it is safe and neither does it alter the fact that not all the waste is low level.

[Windmill]

The good thing about B&Q's DIY electricity generation stuff is that it will fairly quickly teach the over-enthusiastic about the limitations of wind and solar power.

If they had to listen to their wives on a calm, dreary winter day when there was no electricity, realism would quickly set in!

I've never been happy about the nuclear waste disposal problem; the only half-sensible approach I ever heard was that since the radioactives came from a star (supernova) in the first place, the waste should be fired into the sun.

And given the reliability of rocket-propelled vehicles, that's at present no answer at all.

But better 100,000 years of dangerously radioactive waste than to freeze to death in the dark.

Meantime, solar, wind and water can help out in small ways.

[Peter Parry]

The French seem to manage quite well, and are apparently the only country in the EU who have met their Kyoto commitment already.

[Peter Parry]

It makes no difference as at that level it will never pay back its manufacturing energy.

If they do that consistently they won't last long. It is a neat trick though - must see if it's available here and get a long extension lead :-).

Subsidies in other words.

Indirect subsidies are not real?

Nor has wind and solar.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Hardly bailed out. More like a sophisticated theft of 90% of the equity by deliberate manipulation of the rules of the electricity market.

[AJH]

I certainly don't understand the economics of subsidies but it strikes me all energy is subsidised and this is because it is so important. Why a free market hasn't worked I don't know.

I'm uneasy with nuclear power but accept we're going down that route but the last generation were effectively subsidised for two reasons and the ones with more advanced technologies have been more costly to implement. Such that they were uneconomic in comparison with the earlier simple ones. It looks like any next generation ones will be saddled with such high supervision costs that they will not produce economic electricity, especially compared with ones being built or planned in other countries.

AJH

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:57:56 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen wrote this:-

I have now come across some actual figures. Around the time of privatisation Foyers was generating around 400 million units per year. 100 million of these were from flows off the catchment and 300 million from pumped storage. Obviously the proportion will depend on the particular station.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:01:20 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

Readers may like to note what you snipped from my posting:

===============================================================

Even ignoring the waste issue, nuclear stations are large and inflexible. There are so-far untested claims that recent improvements in engineering may improve the flexibility a little. Large and inflexible stations are either on or off. To match this with a variable demand means having other places round and about to export the electricity and promoting night time use of electricity.

===============================================================

There are rather fewer places for the UK to export the electricity and rather fewer connections across which to do so.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:06:00 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

It depends on how long they pay the high prices for and why they are paying the high prices.

Incorrect. Onshore wind and solar water heating are not subsidised by government. Offshore wind will move in that direction shortly. Solar electricity generation will be subsidised for some time. None of these subsidies compares to the money poured down the nuclear hole for decades.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:17:26 +0100 someone who may be AJH wrote this:-

The nuclear lobby certainly seem to have stitched things up at the moment. However, the last time they did so they only managed to build one of the power stations they planned. With a lot of hard work they can be prevented from even getting that far.

Actually the plan is to use designs from overseas, with less supervision than currently. However, the one in Finland was not going too well the last I heard (a few months ago).

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:25:58 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen wrote this:-

Morar is an example of a relatively low head turbine installation.

0.75MW from a 5m head.

Notes:

1) this was opened in 1948 and engineering has moved on. If it has not already been uprated then it probably will be soon. IIRC they were getting around a 10% improvement in output with this programme.

2) Morar was originally just connected to the local system around Mallaig and thus was sized so that it could provide output all day every day. It is now connected to the external electricity system and thus more electricity could prudently be generated.

[Andy Hall]

No need. It's the best solution.

If the greenies want to go off and build a few windmills somewhere, then as long as it's an an existing industrial area the numbers not too high, doesn't involve taxpayer's money and keeps them happy then fine.

In the meantime, the serious consideration and investment can go into nuclear electricity generation where it belongs.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Source for:

a) subsidies since privatisation

b) claims that future plans for nuclear power include subsidy

And while you are at it who do you think is subsidising who with the CO2 climate change levy on electricity generated by nuclear power?

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:06:39 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

I note that you have offered nothing to back up this assertion.