Renewable energy

[Zedmeister]

Just like to know the thoughts of hexens on the future of energy and how get people to adopt it? Seen some interesting articles of late which has got me thinking some more:

Micropower on the Beeb website

There has been much focus of late on renewable energy, what with El Presidento Blair and Micheal Howard talking about the future of energy, the BBC is running a series of stories on it, the Times talks about how the DTI wants to start using Nuclear Power and no doubt plenty more to come. Personally I think that the concept of Micropower and use of Solar Roof Panels is a brilliant move. It may no provide the complete solution but it is a step in the right direction. Thoughts people?

[turkster]

Interesting .

I've recently been doing some work for some windfarm projects (inland and offshore) and have been impressed with some of the technology that goes into this.

Offshore wind turbines are especcially impressive and I think could become very useful in the future. They also dont invite so much public opposition as in land windframs which are often considered an 'eysore'.

Personally I feel that if people want energy it is a lot prefereable to put up with a few wind turbines than a nuclear powerstation or oil/coal fueled station.

[ajbrun]

Agreed.

People should built a lot less coal power stations, and other form of non-renewable fueled power stations. Even nuclear station should stop, because the nuclear waste has to be put somewhere, and where ever we put it, we will pollute the environment for THOUSANDS of years. We shouldn't even send it into space, because the rocket might explde in earths atmosphere.

I don't mind seeing wind farms on land - I think they're not an eyesore, just a sign that times are changing. It should be renewable power all the way!

Also, a few years ago, I think there was an idea that all countries should cut down on using non-renewable fuels. But I think the president at the time - George Bush I think - said that wasn't going to happen, which I think was just stupid.

[Rave]

It's an interesting article. I firmly agree that investing in renewable energy is a very good idea, but I'm not convinced about micropower schemes like that. Their suggestion that every house should have PV panels on the roof strikes me as a bad idea. It was only recently that PV cells got good enough that they make more energy in their lifetime than they took up being manufactured. They're simply not efficient enough to be economically viable at this point in time. The little wind turbines are a better idea, but remember that to store the energy you also need lead-acid batteries, and they're not very environmentally friendly; in fact no rechargeable battery is particularly nice.

I reckon that renewable energy on a macro rather than micro scale is the way forward. Particularly, we should start installing wave power stations, there is enormous potential for power generation there. We'll always need some kind of non-renewable energy as a backup though, for the times there's no sun and no wind.

Rich :¬)

[Jiff Lemon]

Quite interesting. The Girlfriends brother lives on a Canal Barge, so it was a real eye opener for me to see just how much energy you can save/generate when you have to.

[turkster]

I reckon that renewable energy on a macro rather than micro scale is the way forward.
Rich :¬)

Well to a certain extent yes but I think micro energy production is still viable. PV cells are not the answer at the moment but that may well change in the future. Micro wind power is a possibility and a few people I know have been seriously thinking of installing small wind turbine. The initial outlay is large but it does work out a good bit cheaper in the long run

Water power is another area that could be very useful in rural areas. At the moment I am doing research on the water supply and power at a monastery (founded 1832) here. Their use of water power and other renewable energy sources is amazing. In 1880, by building a water conduit 3 miles up into the mountains, they managed to source enough water to run their bakery, dairy, laundry, sawmills, grain mills and book presses with water turbines. In 1912 they installed a hydroelectricity system which provided them with electricity for 50 years before the national grid reached the area. The hydroelectric turbine was then converted for use in a geothermal heating system driving a 50hp heat pump. A bio-gas preduction system and reed bed waste disposal systems have been installed in recent times.

Although not exactly on a Micro scale it shows what can be done with a bit of thought and determination .

[Zedmeister]

Its amazing what could be done if people put their minds to it. Shame that a majority are apathetic about Energy Efficiency and renewable energy,

Tis also a shame that the ITER project is bogged down in political wrangling.

[Rave]

Well to a certain extent yes but I think micro energy production is still viable. PV cells are not the answer at the moment but that may well change in the future. Micro wind power is a possibility and a few people I know have been seriously thinking of installing small wind turbine. The initial outlay is large but it does work out a good bit cheaper in the long run

Water power is another area that could be very useful in rural areas. At the moment I am doing research on the water supply and power at a monastery (founded 1832) here. Their use of water power and other renewable energy sources is amazing. In 1880, by building a water conduit 3 miles up into the mountains, they managed to source enough water to run their bakery, dairy, laundry, sawmills, grain mills and book presses with water turbines. In 1912 they installed a hydroelectricity system which provided them with electricity for 50 years before the national grid reached the area. The hydroelectric turbine was then converted for use in a geothermal heating system driving a 50hp heat pump. A bio-gas preduction system and reed bed waste disposal systems have been installed in recent times.

Although not exactly on a Micro scale it shows what can be done with a bit of thought and determination .

Well, I saw the article the Guardian did on it today. They reckon that a wind turbine costs about £750 and can generate up to 1.4KW, whereas a PV array on a roof costs £25-30,000 and can generate up to 3KW. Wind=viable, Solar=not.

What you need is three or four little wind turbines powering the heat pumps that extract heat from the soil, or roof mounted water heating solar panels. For a total investment of less that £10K at current prices (surely less as volumes ramp up) you've got a complete long term energy solution.

I still reckon that large scale schemes are needed and are very worthwhile though. Not everyone can have a wave power system outside their house, but there's an enormous amount of energy generation potential there. We could even export it. The comments in the BBC article about us buying in power from abroad are a bit silly- we get all our bought in electricity from France (who generate 80% of their power from nuclear plants) and we buy it for less than the cost of generating it ourselves.

Rich :¬)

[Dorza]

What are the potential dangers of that nuclear fusion plant? I meant your using heats as high as 100 million degrees. Thats many many times hotter than even the sun. What happens if theres some sort of explosion, will half the earth melt or somthing?

Seen these things a while back when they were on horizon. Wondered about my questions above ever since.

BTW im all for Solar/Wind/Turbine etc energy. Producing power on your roof is a very appealing thought to me.

[starside]

Changing the subject a little bit, the thing that gets me in the energy deabte, is that everyone moans about global warming and how bad the car is, yet I don't see anyone giving up thier cars....

Tony Blair and the government lately issued papers on the global warming issue, but does Tony travel by Tube? of course not, he continues to be chauffered (SP?) around everwhere. And as for Two Jags....

If only the government would be more welcoming to horse and cart....

As for me, I dont own any vehicles, I use the bus to get to work.

[turkster]

What are the potential dangers of that nuclear fusion plant? I meant your using heats as high as 100 million degrees. Thats many many times hotter than even the sun. What happens if theres some sort of explosion, will half the earth melt or somthing?

Well the high temperature drops drastically once the plant is shut down and any damage from high temperature plasma would be very localised. More dangereous would be leakages of some of the elements used in the process or a large electromagnetic spike from the containment field but even so these would be much less serious than a meltdown in a fission plant.

[turkster]

Changing the subject a little bit, the thing that gets me in the energy deabte, is that everyone moans about global warming and how bad the car is, yet I don't see anyone giving up thier cars....

If only the government would be more welcoming to horse and cart....

As for me, I dont own any vehicles, I use the bus to get to work.

That certainly annoys me too . It is especcially noticable with Greeny types who harp on about how bad global warming is and how the government should do something about it etc etc but of course most of these people have cars and every other modern convenience and use them like there is no tommorow.


Talking of horse and carts I actually drove 8 miles to work at the weekend on a horse and cart . Great form of transport if you've got time (his top speed at a trot is only 13mph ).

[ajbrun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorza
What are the potential dangers of that nuclear fusion plant? I meant your using heats as high as 100 million degrees. Thats many many times hotter than even the sun. What happens if theres some sort of explosion, will half the earth melt or somthing?

Well the high temperature drops drastically once the plant is shut down and any damage from high temperature plasma would be very localised. More dangereous would be leakages of some of the elements used in the process or a large electromagnetic spike from the containment field but even so these would be much less serious than a meltdown in a fission plant.

Well actually, if something goes wrong, (if i remember correctly from A level physics), it will do one of 2 things. Either explode, or keep reacting, and meting stuff around it. This means it would be theoretically possible to "melt" a hole to the centre of the earth. It was something like that anyway. I sure someone else knows more about it than me. Apparently, it nearly happened with chenobal (SP?) in 1986.

I know I'm a bit fuzzy about what actually happens, but I do remember my physics teacher saying something of that sort.

[Dorza]

I had feelings it could be somthing along them lines. Which is why i dont like the idea of nuclear fusion plants. There are far safer alternatives.

[turkster]

Well actually, if something goes wrong, (if i remember correctly from A level physics), it will do one of 2 things. Either explode, or keep reacting, and meting stuff around it. This means it would be theoretically possible to "melt" a hole to the centre of the earth. It was something like that anyway. I sure someone else knows more about it than me. Apparently, it nearly happened with chenobal (SP?) in 1986.

I know I'm a bit fuzzy about what actually happens, but I do remember my physics teacher saying something of that sort.

The accidents at Chernobyl (and Three Mile Island to a lesser extent) were coused by a runaway reaction or meltdown in a nuclear fission process. I think what you are thinking of is the "China Syndrome" where it was commonly imagined that a melting reactor core could bore through the earth from the USA to China (or at least to the centre of the earth ). In fact as soon as the core hit ground water it would explode.

The fusion process is quite different as the reaction can only be sustained with the use of complex containment fields and high pressures. Consequently any failure in the containment filed etc would result in the imediate collapse of the reaction. To actually melt a whole through the earth the reaction would have to be naturally self contained and sustainable which isnt really going to happen outside of a sun or similar object.

If your interested this Wikepedia article is good and gives links to other sites such as the ITER and JET projects .

[ajbrun]

The accidents at Chernobyl (and Three Mile Island to a lesser extent) were coused by a runaway reaction or meltdown in a nuclear fission process. I think what you are thinking of is the "China Syndrome" where it was commonly imagined that a melting reactor core could bore through the earth from the USA to China (or at least to the centre of the earth ). In fact as soon as the core hit ground water it would explode.

The fusion process is quite different as the reaction can only be sustained with the use of complex containment fields and high pressures. Consequently any failure in the containment filed etc would result in the imediate collapse of the reaction. To actually melt a whole through the earth the reaction would have to be naturally self contained and sustainable which isnt really going to happen outside of a sun or similar object.

If your interested this Wikepedia article is good and gives links to other sites such as the ITER and JET projects .

Yes - that's right, I remember now, it was called the china syndrome.