Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:12:11 +0100, Andy wrote (in article ):

I find it difficult to imagine that the number of people liking them will increase as more are built next to where they live.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:04:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

but the Scottish Executive is fully responsible for planning.

Not quite.

Pejorative term.

Figures already given.

Nobody is suggesting generating 50% of electricity from wind farms. At present prices the costs would be very high.

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:08:44 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Well... one can draw the obvious conclusions from the behaviour of government organisations.

Perhaps true, but not a lot more.

They are windmills.

The application is an industrial one - it certainly isn't for decoration; or at least I assume you don't believe that the purpose is decorative.

Which is really why it's not worth bothering.....

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:58:40 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):

I suppose that that would be DSD ? ( ddarlledu sain digidol)

[Owain]

Possibly. I never really got past "Oes mae'r cath yn y ffwrn microdon?" and "Mae tadcu wedi golli ei danedd gosod".

Owain

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well go and look it up then. There are tables on the net of energy densities and specific weights etc.

Kerosene is NOT the natural product of rotting tree trunks..its a distillate fraction of what comes out of the ground.

Well that's how we make plastics from gas, so its not as though its very hard is it? plastic isn't as expensive as viagra..

[The Natural Philosopher]

You can use Uranium to make Plutonium. In fact a fast breeder makes more fuel than it uses..

[The Natural Philosopher]

well the current crop were built in the 50's and early 60s IIRC.

Indeed. Sadly its all taken up with suburbia instead.

Probably forcing almost everybody to live in high rise flats with trees in between would solve the problems anyway..perhaps cities should have to pay carbon tax for the CO2 absorption they are preventing, by being concreted over.

>

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:33 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

It is certainly worth bothering to get the percentage to the current economic limit of 20%. Generation that is relatively cheap to build and decommission and which has zero fuel cost is something to use whenever possible.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:42:41 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

You might like to consider Swaffham then.

and show the first and second turbines. Readers should note that out of shot of the photo of the second turbine is part of the town.

The SDC's excellent report on wind generated electricity has whole sections on planning, landscape and so on.

52 (paper page 46) is the start of a case study on Swaffham, from which what follows is taken.

The first turbine generated three letters against, three for and one saying it might be alright if it was the right colour. That was all.

One of the people not in favour of the turbine was the then Area Planning Officer.

"The biggest objector to the erection of wind turbines in Norfolk was me. I had never seen one other than in a photograph but I knew that they were wrong for Norfolk. In meetings with Ecotricity I was the one saying 'No'. However once the application had been submitted and I became aware of the amount of pollution generated by fossil fuels in the production of electricity I became convinced that turbines were an option. I watched the erection of Swaffham 1 and upon its completion I saw a graceful structure which contrary to my earlier views did not detract from the historic character of the town or the surrounding area. Subject to the assessments usual to this type of application, I now support the use of wind energy in Breckland for the production of electricity."

Greg Britton

Principal Planning Officer of Breckland District Council and former Area Planning Officer

"The local community was generally enthusiastic. When Ecotricity mailed 100,000 households in Breckland asking residents to say 'Yes' or 'No' to more wind turbines as part of the public consultation on plans for Swaffham 2, around 89% of the 9,000 respondents voted 'Yes'. Only 6.5% said 'No' and some 3.6% were either undecided or left their vote blank. Greg Britton recalls that 26 letters were sent to the planning department over Swaffham 2 ? 23 of which were support letters, including three from district councillors."

SDC text.

[Brian Sharrock]

You're conveniently leaving out of your claim the _input_ energy costs of producing the structures. No structure, consisting of a concrete base(?), pilings, mast, ginormous blades, turning gear, generators, control systems, synchronising apparatus, cables etc. etc. can realistically claim to have 'zero fuel cost'. The 'cheap to build' claim needs to be substantiated with a 'how much energy needs to be put _in_?'; versus 'how much energy may be extracted?' Just basing a claim on 'what cost have the beancounters attributed to this scheme?' , isn't ,IMHO, a valid baseline to draw any conclusions. Pounds sterling shouldn't be the base-line but Megajoules in/Megajoules out.

Your prejudices may vary :)

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:21:56 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

1) It is talking about the addition of one turbine 2) It is from an organisation with an agenda of promoting these things. If I could read through their site and find opposing views and information and a balanced summary, then it would have some level of credibility. I find that information elsewhere, leading me to the inevitable conclusion that the information it presents, just like that from the wind energy trade organisation is at best subject to question and verification.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:17:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote (in article ):

Renewable energy, then....

[Andy Hall]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:40:54 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):

You have me stumped with these.

First one is something to do with putting a cat in the microwave.

Second is about your father insisting that you brush your teeth? (A guess)

[Owain]

Is there a cat in the microwave oven? (with the compulsory affirmative and negative responses conjucated down about twenty tenses)

Grandfather has lost his false teeth.

Admittedly we didn't really aim for a 'steddfod chair in the CSE group.

Owain

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:26:26 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):

So I wasn't that far out. My dictionary has tad-cu and henlad for grandfather. Gosod seems to have a variety of meanings according to context and dannedd/danedd seems to have two Ns (or does it?)

[Timothy Murphy]

I don't think that is so. The works I consulted suggest that the addition of plutonium to uranium in MOX plants reduces uranium needs by about 30%. Against this, extraction of plutonium multiplies high-level waste about 17 times. For this reason, the technique is not considered economic at present.

Fast breeders are used principally for weapon production.

[meow2222]

This is a common view, and imho a mistaken one. Real world energy input is reflected better by cost than it is by looking at energies used directly in the manufacture. Why?

1. Business activities other than manufacture come into it IRL, and often their energy inputs overwhelm manufacture energy use.
2. For every tool or material used in manufacture, it has had to be manufactured or harvested. For every material or tool used to do that, those also had to be manufactured. And so on indefinitely.

NT

[Ian White]

No, they aren't. You can't begin to play with fast breeders without already having everything you need to make weapons-grade plutonium by a much quicker and easier route.

As I said a few days ago, the quick and easy way is to irradiate uranium in a very basic thermal reactor, and then put it through a reprocessing plant. All the existing weapons states had this technology for more than half a century, and quickly built up more than sufficient stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium.

In contrast, the fast breeder was conceived as a way to extract more energy from 'used' plutonium and uranium that had already reached the end of its working life in first-generation thermal reactors. It was a clever concept, but it never had any prospect of being economic.

[Timothy Murphy]

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors. An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

Which is exactly what I said.

However, my main point is that nuclear power stations are often spoken of as an unlimited source of energy, whereas in fact the known reserves of uranium are of the same order as the known reserves of oil.