FabSwingers.com forum: Alternate power sources

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Would anyone be interested in cheaper electric? Just having multiple small turbines in your locale (less than 500 meters) should suffice for wind-power. They're not an eyesore (I think they're quite majestic) by commanding over the area. The public seem to handle regular pylons ok, & the turbines are much smaller.

Anybody interested in the idea then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Would anyone be interested in cheaper electric? Just having multiple small turbines in your locale (less than 500 meters) should suffice for wind-power. They're not an eyesore (I think they're quite majestic) by commanding over the area. The public seem to handle regular pylons ok, & the turbines are much smaller.

Anybody interested in the idea then?"

Not me personally but I have a friend who's mad into creating free or cheaper energy source

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Turbines ARE an eyesore in my humble opinion anyway.

I'm going to be controversial and suggest a wave of new nuclear power stations, make us self sufficient without having to depend on oil imports.

Not everyone's cup of tea I know and will mean billions of pounds worth of investment but it's a good way forward provided we can keep them secure from natural disaster and terrorists!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hello Cant you guess,

small wind turbines give out very little power, so you'd need a great many of them which will not be attractive or even practical.

We should have started a programme of nuclear stations ten or more years ago instead we've gone off in a wind/solar dead end at huge and wasted expense.

Alec

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Turbines ARE an eyesore in my humble opinion anyway.

I'm going to be controversial and suggest a wave of new nuclear power stations, make us self sufficient without having to depend on oil imports.

Not everyone's cup of tea I know and will mean billions of pounds worth of investment but it's a good way forward provided we can keep them secure from natural disaster and terrorists! "

Nothing wrong with nuclear power if it's used and managed properly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/11/14 17:29:42]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

The hot air this place generates sometimes would run the country's energy needs well into the next century.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

2 big problems with nuclear

1st Chernobyl and Fukushima

2nd they actually cost more than a few billion and we gotta start on decommissioning the ones we already got and can't afford to decommission really soon.

Like it or lump it wind turbines are here to stay.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I personally would choose to go nuclear - but the only thing that deters most people from nuclear power is the dangers of radioactivity.

Britain is one of the windiest countries in Europe, so why not choose wind power?

Do you find small turbines (around the 7 or 8 meter mark) offensive? Then what of the thousands of pylons throughout the country?

I think the public would get used to them (or even welcome them when they see how cheap the supply will be . . .).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I like turbines, I think they look nice. When I was a kid, this area was all winding gear and slag heaps. Turbines are much nicer

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Now you tell me!! I've just rigged up to next door's!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the public would get used to them (or even welcome them when they see how cheap the supply will be . . .)."

You're just taking the piss now.

If you think there's a market for these, there isn't, then go for it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The new vertical ones there currently working on to be built into lampposts are hardly noticeable and as with most technology they'll get more efficient and cheaper once they go into mass production

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't understand why they can't paint the large ones pretty colours like say Tulips. At least Belgium paints the columns green.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arumcoupleCouple
over a year ago

salisbury

Living within a world heritage site it a no go here... Would we want one, Nope !!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.

Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!

I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Because it's a waste of time and effort as somebody would have to go and repaint them constantly,really it would be just alot easier for people to get used to them.

As for no market there's a company in Holland that makes 15 million of them a year and seimens has invested 1 billion into a raft of new generation wind turbines so I'm guessing somebody's buying them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.

Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!

I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?."

Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.

Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.

Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.

Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!

I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?."
...3 mile island finished the nuclear industry in the states, maybe you are quite young as windscale also went close before that.

The problem with nuclear power is

It's not manageable unless you spend huge amounts of money into safety and even then you still can't allow for freak accidents like Fukushima, (by the way Britain also stands near a fault line) it's just not as active.

There are technologies like liquid thorium reactors that would work alot safer but nobody really wants to invest in them as you can't get that lovely by product of plutonium.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

How strange that windmills died a death? Was it because there was an alternative?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *amslam1000Man
over a year ago

willenhall

Why not make them look like proper old time windmills make them into an attractive landscape addition not an eyesore theres loads of sites that used to have windmills they must have been sited where there was consistent reliable wind. ( the houses of parliament seem to be the most reliable site in the nation lil)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've thousands of hamsters on a wee spinning wheel, so I'm sorted

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How strange that windmills died a death? Was it because there was an alternative?"

Aston Villa?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.

Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!

I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?.

Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.

Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.

Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems."
...Very few! Your having a laugh surely.

Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.

Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.

Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.

Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems.

But the cost in quality of life has been terrible to those who inhabit the affected area (it's since been declared a no-go area, but children have been born severely deformed down wind).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

A Carson Tower.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.

Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.

Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems.

But the cost in quality of life has been terrible to those who inhabit the affected area (it's since been declared a no-go area, but children have been born severely deformed down wind)."

And coal mining and oil exploration are safer how?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Chernobyl had been governed by people that needed educating on the dangers of Nuclear Power, & I think it was just a matter of time that an accident occurred.

Japan's Nuclear Reactor had been built too near a fault line anyway!

I also remember the incident with 3 mile island, but did it really happen (I was young) or is it a figment of my imagination?.

Ever notice how many humans died during the actual nuclear accidents. Very few, if any.

Granted, the Russkies sent in to work on Chernobyl suffered greatly.

Apparently, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been wonderful for local fauna which have flourished without sany significant problems....Very few! Your having a laugh surely.

Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.

Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete."

Pretty accurate estimate eh? Between 200k and 1.2m. Would hate to see a bad one.

Deaths directly related to Chernobyl and aftermath are significantly lower.

One could get silly and say that every resident within a 1000 mile radius will die eventually.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Most radioactive particulate are toxins it's not the radiation that kills you long term, it's affects are like asbestos they take 20 years to show up but if you look at the Ukraine's current cancer rate to pre 1985 there up 20 fold victims like Elena baltacha where it's hard to exactly prove that particulate from Chernobyl caused her cancer but the statistics are shockingly high!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!)."

Serious question for you :

Does the wind get "used up" when it hits the turbines.

Is there a limit to how many turbines can be operated by the wind?

Forget efficiencies for the moment.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It varies wildly due the 200,000 report being a un sponsored report and the 1.2 million retort being independent, make from that what you wish.

But considering the official deaths directly in the first three months was 1750, you have a bizarre case for "very few".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/11/14 18:14:45]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Coal mines & oil reserves are exhaustible though (as is Nuclear Power - it's just that it lasts an incredibly long time!), wind will always be present (as long as we've an atmosphere!).

Serious question for you :

Does the wind get "used up" when it hits the turbines.

Is there a limit to how many turbines can be operated by the wind?

Forget efficiencies for the moment.

Yes xx is the correct answer x

I do wonder what op would have done for electric when the wind stops ?

Windy country you say? Perhaps however ask myself and other kite surfers what the wind has been like this year

There is certainly a place in UK Power generation for wind xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Best estimates are between 200,000 to 1.2 million for Chernobyl alone.

Just because they don't die the next day or the next month like the 1000 Russian soldiers who flew suicide missions dropping sand and concrete."

Pretty accurate estimate eh? Between 200k and 1.2m. Would hate to see a bad one.

Deaths directly related to Chernobyl and aftermath are significantly lower.

One could get silly and say that every resident within a 1000 mile radius will die eventually.

The Soviets don't want to declare how many people actually died, but if it's 'only' 200K, then 200K is by far too much!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The hot air this place generates sometimes would run the country's energy needs well into the next century."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *moke itMan
over a year ago

Bristol

Strap a dynamo to everyone's arse on here problem solved

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When the wind stops there's pv when the sun's not shining there's waves or geo thermal but more than likely it will be a combination of lots.

I'd rather (and do) live near turbines than a nuclear power station built by the French and run by the Chinese which when there is an accident as Fukushima is proving ,is one awful Pandora to put back in the box

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i find them sort of graceful

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Wind turbines produce electricity which is then stored in 'cells' (that means batteries to most people). As all cells release a DC voltage & most items in a house require 240 AC an inverter is required (either that or your house'll need converting for the DC supply!).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford

wood burner as renewable wood can be used new types are secondary burn types or downdraft boilers

a gasifier from burning wood makes gas

magnet electric generator

stirling motors

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ordweaver2018Man
over a year ago

Carlisle

Geothermal, biomass?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"The hot air this place generates sometimes would run the country's energy needs well into the next century."

And our politicians beat that ten times over.

We should be set.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Wind turbines produce electricity which is then stored in 'cells' (that means batteries to most people). As all cells release a DC voltage & most items in a house require 240 AC an inverter is required (either that or your house'll need converting for the DC supply!).

It can be a little daunting at first (to those with little experience of electrics), but the system should pay for itself in time (even less time if many people choose this method for producing electricity within a community)."
....Actually everything solid state in your house runs on dc they use a rectifier to convert the ac supply to dc so you'd be converting dc to ac via a inverter and then that item would be using a rectifier to convert it back to dc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'm for wind tidal and solar but find nuclear mainly a no for future build due to the vast amount of waste that does not just disappear and is around for hundreds of thousands of years.

The op posed the question as if there was a free giveaway which seemed strange. Many are owned by overseas tax dodgers and venture capitalists who don't give a damn what we the consumer pay for our energy and don't care to help anyone but themselves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I'm aware most electrical items run from a lower voltage DC supply, but if you decide to use DC then you've got to ensure all transformers are removed from the items you require power for.

Sexy-Bum seems to know what they're talking about. They must be aware of the problems inherent with DC (difficulty supplying power over any appreciable distance etc.). You have to convert DC to AC, then raise it's voltage where the volt drop won't affect the final voltage after it's transformed back to a usable voltage - hence the turbine within a short distance!

This only really matters because people regard any new blot on the landscape as an 'eyesore', but they take little notice of (as already mentioned) pylons!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rather than a turbine on the roof of my car, could i just have a sail instead?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Couldn't agree more short length generation is key to efficiency, the solution to the problem is already available in most cases it just requires some will to do it.

Thorium(liquid salt) reactors are inherently safer, produce by products of much needed rare earths are cheaper to build and run in fact they were one of the original reactors used in the 40,s.

The truth is most things we have like (nuclear) are massively subsidised by government because they want plutonium and enriched uranium and has nothing to do with cheap or renewable energy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tidal power is completely ignored by the government. The amount of energy that could be harnessed in the bristol channel, the hebrides and the shetlands is phenomenal. Its as regular as clockwork. But the government try to poo-poo it by saying the installation costs are too high. And just exactly how much are we going to pay for nuclear power stations, the fuel for them, the reproccessing plant, the waste disposal, the risk of accidents? We don't even make use of our rivers. For gods sake people used water power prior to electricity being discovered! It's there, it's almost constant and we ignore it. Utter fucking madness.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

I don't understand why they can't paint the large ones pretty colours like say Tulips. At least Belgium paints the columns green. "

Because we would think we were in Holland

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bovethekneeCouple
over a year ago

Hampshire / Herefordshire

Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What you need is nuclear fusion reactors not fission. Also, if you ever want to scare yourself, research how much environmental damage is done creating the magnets inside the turbine generators.

By the way the danger from chernobyl has not passed, if the radiation gets into the water table you wont be able to farm in mainland Europe. Hugs.x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Couldn't agree more short length generation is key to efficiency, the solution to the problem is already available in most cases it just requires some will to do it.

Thorium(liquid salt) reactors are inherently safer, produce by products of much needed rare earths are cheaper to build and run in fact they were one of the original reactors used in the 40,s.

The truth is most things we have like (nuclear) are massively subsidised by government because they want plutonium and enriched uranium and has nothing to do with cheap or renewable energy"

Now, if you were to say that the (sneaky) dosposal of depleted uranium in Iraq, an illegal war to many, has led to close on 1.2 million deaths i'd not disagree.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Yes Sexy-Bum, I forgot that they require uranium for their WMD's!

Priapus - tidal power is another option & I agree with your statement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *adyGardenWoman
over a year ago

LONDON (se)

"Surely cheaper electric is pretty easy - just use less. 10watts a month saving is over a £1. I reckon my kettle costs us about £15 a month to run so it should be easy to cut back on that. And don't get me started on how much good insulation saves."

£15 to run a kettle? Are you filing your bath from it?

My electric bill is about 30 a month and I have a tumble dryer

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Technology is always the key and nuclear is a 50 year old technology.

Led lights save 90% and run on dc!

Led TV,s save 70% on run and 95% on stand by. It's all about investment.

As an example there's two scientists in California working on synthetic cell generation.

Now ones producing oil from engineered algae and he's received a 20 million dollar grant.

The others working on an engineered cell that eats cancerous cells and his lab results are startling, out of 100 terminally ill mice he had a 100%success rate with brain tumours ,bearing in mind brain tumours have one of the worst survival rates for cancer.

He received a 2000 dollar grant.

There's more profit in oil than curing brain tumours, hence oil gets more progressive research.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

£15 to run a kettle? Are you filing your bath from it?

My electric bill is about 30 a month and I have a tumble dryer"

There could be a clue in the £1 for 10 watts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bovethekneeCouple
over a year ago

Hampshire / Herefordshire

No I got the figures from the electric company. 3kw kettle used for regular teas, coffees, cooking etc. is nearly £15 a month. I will try and only heat the smallest amount from now on as it does mount up. Look up Electricity Running Costs Calculator it gets scary.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't it said that 10% of the world's electricity is now used for the 'net and connected devices?

How about mandating self powered treadles to generate the power required, maybe a dynamo on a fixed bike? Win, win, cut down on obesity too?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And on another point some of the world best mathematicians work in the banking sector doing risk assessment algorithms because the pays better.ffs no wonder we're in trouble!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *adyGardenWoman
over a year ago

LONDON (se)

"No I got the figures from the electric company. 3kw kettle used for regular teas, coffees, cooking etc. is nearly £15 a month. I will try and only heat the smallest amount from now on as it does mount up. Look up Electricity Running Costs Calculator it gets scary."

I only fill my kettle with what I need and have an energy efficient washing machine and fridge freezer. I always turn off lights when leaving a room and use phillips eco 40w bulbs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *adyGardenWoman
over a year ago

LONDON (se)

Isn't it said that 10% of the world's electricity is now used for the 'net and connected devices?

How about mandating self powered treadles to generate the power required, maybe a dynamo on a fixed bike? Win, win, cut down on obesity too?

Perhaps use the power generated from all gym equipment

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I converted all my lights to led 6 years ago and went from full demand of 7700w to.... 650w

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We like to save electricity, I have made a momentum electrical generator but-plug for Shaz, Ideal for phone charging when away from a plug socket

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I boil water in the micro-wave (so there's none left over left in the kettle). That is unless I've a few cuppa's to brew (then the kettles quicker).

I changed to energy efficient bulbs (between 5 & 11 watts) around 6 years ago. Don't know how much money it's saved me though, but I'm aware it's saving me (some) money.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Technology is always the key and nuclear is a 50 year old technology.

Led lights save 90% and run on dc!

Led TV,s save 70% on run and 95% on stand by. It's all about investment.

As an example there's two scientists in California working on synthetic cell generation.

Now ones producing oil from engineered algae and he's received a 20 million dollar grant.

He received a 2000 dollar grant.

There's more profit in oil than curing brain tumours, hence oil gets more progressive research.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread