Good for Sir Bob! However, I think we need someone with a high profile in the Green movement to make that plea before anything changes...

quote:

Now your turn muf C dive R . Calculate the number of cancer cases from fossil fuels and nuclear power stations.

That would be a hard number to nail down RP but I'd say nuclear has caused way more cancer than fossil.

quote:

"The idea that I could help fight climate change didn't come into it. I've been taxed into helping," he said. "And this, of course, is what any form of taxation should do. It should lead to behavioural change.

So thats whats taxation is for Mr Geldof eh? I thought it was for robbing the poor to give to the rich

Put this in your pipe...

fuel for thought

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Good for Sir Bob! However, I think we need someone with a high profile in the Green movement to make that plea before anything changes...

Would Lovelock fit the bill? He has been saying this for a while.

FWIW I agree. We have no option if we are to avoid an energy crisis, even if we ignore GW (which, of course, we can't).

This article demolishes the case for wind farms.
They will cost a fortune and destabilize the national grid.

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
This article demolishes the case for wind farms.
They will cost a fortune and destabilize the national grid.

This thread’s suffering from split ends! (nuclear rad & renewables). Compare fossil fuel and say Chernbyl.

“US EPA conducted what is considered the definitive study on this topic in 1998:”

“Table 9-3 (on page 330) gives the rad emissions in units of miliCuries per billion KWh of electric generation.”

“The total rad from air emissions at coal fired power plants, on
average, is about 360 mCi per billion KWH.”



Say 50 of years running a 1mW coal fired plant (438,000 hrs)
1000 Megawatt = 1,000,000 Kilowatts
So the total power over 50 years is 4.38* 10^11 KWH = 438 billion KWH.
And the total amount of rad produced by a 1000Mwatt coal plant (100% running) in 50 years is:-
(360/1000) Ci * 438 = 158 Curies.
(Assuming 1 mCi is a (millicurie))

Chernbyl Reactor 4 was the one that blew up and was a 1000 MWatt reactor.

QUOTE
During the maximum credible accident at the Chernbyl on 26 April 1986, an estimated 50 to 250 million Ci of rad was released (5.3; 8.3).
UNQUOTE

50,000,000 Ci with 158 Ci over 50 years from a coal plant??? Some sort of QA instinct in me suggests I’ve got my arithmetic wrong so I’d be grateful if someone could check my figs.

As for wind, solar power etc. Try


You get a great pdf download in your inbox every few months. It’s grrrreat!

Destabilizing the grid? Nah – engineering problem and can be fixed. Windpower can be stored thus helping to alleviate the intermittent problem. Compressed air wind energy storage See:-

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

Now your turn muf C dive R . Calculate the number of cancer cases from fossil fuels and nuclear power stations.

That would be a hard number to nail down RP but I'd say nuclear has caused way more cancer than fossil.

What about deaths and lives blighted by mining etc? Chenobyl killed surprisingly few I'm told !?

RP, you know I'm with you re AGW but I am anti wind farms. If its just an engineering problem why can't eON apparently fix it? Its not even a question of will because they are pro wind power in the UK where Powergen press hard to get its proposals through (presumably to gather the incentives without having to manage the grid).

Its interesting to watch the National Grid's supply demand tracker minute by minute on the web. As I understand it, if the demand exceeds the supply the grid fails. Its looks like close margins to me, which is why the intermittency of wind is so problematic.

I have no problem with attempting to store the energy from wind (the Pure company in Shetland do this in the form of hydrogen fuel cells) but if the UK is to be carpetted in wind turbines for a fraction of our energy supply without even saving conventional power generation from fossil (cos they have to provide spinning backup) whats the point?

quote:

This article demolishes the case for wind farms.
They will cost a fortune and destabilize the national grid.

It didn't exactly demolish it. He seems concerned about the ability to build 7000 turbines in 12 years, and it does seem a tall order. But how does that compare with building 18 nuclear power stations in 12 years when the last UK power station took 15 years and when absolutely everyone and their dog will fight tooth and nail to avoid living near the things.

Looking at the info provided here it's hard for me to see a good case for these 7000 turbines because they appear to be expensive and difficult to build, they don't solve energy security problems, and their mode of operation means they always have to sell their energy cheaply.

The information I'd like to see is the end-to-end carbon costs, including the requirement either for proving energy storage infrastructure or for backup power source.

There is also a strategic element if for example access to other fuels becomes difficult (given that most of it comes from dodgy countries), or if it turns out that the worst case scenarios of the IPCC look to be coming about - in which case carbon costs go through the roof and wind power becomes profitable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:

RP, you know I'm with you re AGW but I am anti wind farms. If its just an engineering problem why can't eON apparently fix it? ]

Hi Ses. did a little surfing on Chris Booker's claim

"Two years ago, 2005 western Europe blacked out after a rush of German windpower into the continental grid forced other power stations to close down. "

This is a apparently a continuation of Booker's

The E.U.'s Wind Power Self-Deception
By Christopher Booker Aug. 17, 2007
energytribune:

[On the evening of Saturday, November 4, 2006, a large part of western Europe experienced a black-out due to a massive power surge from thousands of turbines in Germany into the “pan-European grid.” From Holland to Italy, it was reported that “a real catastrophe” had just barely been averted.]

BUT!

dw-world:

"A surge in electricity demand in Germany due to cold weather triggered blackouts across western Europe Saturday night, leaving about 10 percent of French consumers without power, electricity operators said."

As can be seen it was a German DEMAND no mention of excessive wind power supply. Boy oh boy those folk who take in Booker's stuff. Insert frontal lobes before typing.

RP, no matter which article you choose to believe, don't they both highlight the problem with a destabilised grid, whether it be energy surge or demand exceeding supply?

My local area suffered a black out a few weeks ago. It's amasing how difficult life suddenly becomes when it happens (relatively).

BTW, the dw-world does carry a disclaimer

"Officials are still looking into the exact cause of the blackout"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
RP, no matter which article you choose to believe, don't they both highlight the problem with a destabilised grid, whether it be energy surge or demand exceeding supply?
QUOTE]

Aye. I morphed into an ad hom against Booker.

Still the subject is offshore wind farms. Surfing the company intranet I found a couple of bon mots.

There are various advantages for developing offshore wind power which include:

short supply of land sites in some areas

higher wind speeds offshore

more stable winds

huge offshore wind resources

lower surface roughness therefore a lower tower can be used as the wind speed does not increase much above sea level, so the turbines are cheaper.

lower turbulence therefore longer turbine lifetime (estimated at 25 years instead of 20 years on land)

no greenhouse gas emission

BUT

Foundations are a very important consideration in developing an offshore wind power scheme as they can contribute to a substantial amount of the project costs. The XXXXXX study, for example, which was located in 5 to 10 meter water depths had foundation costs which were 23% of the project costs.

There's quite a bit here so I'll plough through it. Some costing studies but none show estimates for CO2 released.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
RP, no matter which article you choose to believe, don't they both highlight the problem with a destabilised grid, whether it be energy surge or demand exceeding supply?
QUOTE]

Aye. I morphed into an ad hom against Booker.

Still the subject is offshore wind farms. Surfing the company intranet I found a couple of bon mots.

There are various advantages for developing offshore wind power which include:

short supply of land sites in some areas

higher wind speeds offshore

more stable winds

huge offshore wind resources

lower surface roughness therefore a lower tower can be used as the wind speed does not increase much above sea level, so the turbines are cheaper.

lower turbulence therefore longer turbine lifetime (estimated at 25 years instead of 20 years on land)

no greenhouse gas emission

BUT

Foundations are a very important consideration in developing an offshore wind power scheme as they can contribute to a substantial amount of the project costs. The XXXXXX study, for example, which was located in 5 to 10 meter water depths had foundation costs which were 23% of the project costs.

There's quite a bit here so I'll plough through it. Some costing studies but none show estimates for CO2 released.

RP or other learned friends, is Nuclear Fusion a pipe dream or just a question of funding the research? If the latter would not the investment in 7000 offshore turbines (to not solve the problem !!) be better directed to this goal?

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
RP, no matter which article you choose to believe, don't they both highlight the problem with a destabilised grid, whether it be energy surge or demand exceeding supply?
QUOTE]

Aye. I morphed into an ad hom against Booker.

Still the subject is offshore wind farms. Surfing the company intranet I found a couple of bon mots.

There are various advantages for developing offshore wind power which include:

short supply of land sites in some areas

higher wind speeds offshore

more stable winds

huge offshore wind resources

lower surface roughness therefore a lower tower can be used as the wind speed does not increase much above sea level, so the turbines are cheaper.

lower turbulence therefore longer turbine lifetime (estimated at 25 years instead of 20 years on land)

no greenhouse gas emission

BUT

Foundations are a very important consideration in developing an offshore wind power scheme as they can contribute to a substantial amount of the project costs. The XXXXXX study, for example, which was located in 5 to 10 meter water depths had foundation costs which were 23% of the project costs.

There's quite a bit here so I'll plough through it. Some costing studies but none show estimates for CO2 released.

RP or other learned friends, is Nuclear Fusion a pipe dream or just a question of funding the research? If the latter would not the investment in 7000 offshore turbines (to not solve the problem !!) be better directed to this goal?

Not forgetting Dr Ventner and his DNA Driven World

quote:

RP or other learned friends, is Nuclear Fusion a pipe dream or just a question of funding the research?

Reading between the lines, it requires at least a couple more generations of prototypes to be built and no amount of throwing money at the problem will speed up the logistics significantly. For energy requirement and CO2 reasons we need solutions well before fusion has a chance of becoming available.

quote:

Ventner

Why do so many people think Craig Venter is called Craig Ventner?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

RP or other learned friends, is Nuclear Fusion a pipe dream or just a question of funding the research?

Reading between the lines, it requires at least a couple more generations of prototypes to be built and no amount of throwing money at the problem will speed up the logistics significantly. For energy requirement and CO2 reasons we need solutions well before fusion has a chance of becoming available.

Reminds me (from memory) "The Mythical man month" which stated:-

"The delivery of a baby always takes 9 months no matter how many women are assigned"

BTW fusion power's 40 years away (and has been for the last 20!)

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

Ventner

Why do so many people think Craig Venter is called Craig Ventner?

Dislexia - KO?

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

RP or other learned friends, is Nuclear Fusion a pipe dream or just a question of funding the research?

Reading between the lines, it requires at least a couple more generations of prototypes to be built and no amount of throwing money at the problem will speed up the logistics significantly. For energy requirement and CO2 reasons we need solutions well before fusion has a chance of becoming available.

Reminds me (from memory) "The Mythical man month" which stated:-

"The delivery of a baby always takes 9 months no matter how many women are assigned"

BTW fusion power's 40 years away (and has been for the last 20!)

Well, I suppose VENTER did beat the big boys to being able to read the DNA code so you could well be right. Its the 20 years of dragging feet I was wondering about.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[BTW fusion power's 40 years away (and has been for the last 20!)

Indeed the first mention of that joke was found in the ruins of Pompeii I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[BTW fusion power's 40 years away (and has been for the last 20!)

Indeed the first mention of that joke was found in the ruins of Pompeii I believe.

Yeah - they laughed so much it set the volcano off !