Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
dpack

alternatives to fossil fuels

ive posted this chap's work elsewhere but thought it might be a good idea to start a "brainstorming"thread re becoming independent of fossil fuel/big energy/greenwash projects that depend on subsidies or destructive mineral extraction to be practical and economically viable

cracking sticks

in the r n d form it looks well dangeroos but it does demonstrate liquid and gas fuels from timber etc

the Belorussian partisans did something similar during ww2 for vehicle fuel and i see no reason this type of process could not be scaled up and tidied for wider use
Ty Gwyn

Like the situation with bio fuel,we have to import timber to make any effect,so were back to the US and Russia for supplies.
dpack

4.5 million acres of sporting estates would be a nice coppiced/ fast growing fuel trees forest for a start

another million or so set aside and half a million in forest at the mo

so at say 12 tons/acre per year

72 million tons of fuel per year

drax uses about 10 million tons coal a year at 20000btu per ton

if that was wood at 8000 btu per ton it would need about 25 million tons

so 2 drax size plants would be well within possible uk supply by my maths anyway

what do you think ?is it sensible ?

i dont think the big landowners would mind that much if they had no choice and got well payed if necessary(and squizzers were presented as even more "fun"than grouse )
dpack

if the waste heat from the cracking was producing electric as well as fuels i recon it would be quite a start
Ty Gwyn

Yet Drax supplies come from the US South East,after a UK Government grant of 1billion i believe,
Eggborough bio plant seems to be scrapped
The energy minister intends phasing out coal by 2030

Maybe he has shares in German Lignite power generation,as that is what it looks like is going to happen following these EU directives.
Mistress Rose

We have coal, and some natural gas and oil under this country, and if most woods were coppiced in some way; cycle from 3-50 years, we would have more wood for firewood, chippings etc. for power generation. Of these, only timber and wood are renewable, so we need other renewables as well.

A good start would be a long term strategy by all political parties on how we can be less dependant on other countries for all sorts of energy. Then we could develop an industry to serve the need. With changes in idea, subsidy and interest by political parties every year or so, is it surprising that the energy industry, particularly renewable, is in disarray?

We have tried the old technique of extracting Stockholm tar from wood, but it wasn't very successful. Our charcoal kiln is rather better at it. I believe there was a plant set up somewhere in the north or Scotland to try to develop wood tar and oil, but it wasn't very successful and had a rather short life-late 19th or early 20th century I think.
dpack

late 19th/early 20th c was the time of the ascent of Rockefeller and the rest of the seven sisters who put a lot of effort into suppressing any energy supply they did not control be it small or huge .
dpack

a bit of history

before 1928 such things were less organised but those actions led to the 1928 dinner
dpack

it is important to put this stuff in the context of the rothschild /bis banking system and the ascent of the military/industrial powers of the 20/21st c rather than in isolation and just about energy supply.
dpack

proish

antizionist

ownbrand

as we can see they have a variety of histories but whatever the truth they are deeply involved in how things are

bis

as is the bis
dpack

3 hours of documentaries about oil/gas is rather a lot but it is a history of the last hundred odd years so quite a rapid overview really Laughing

the level of psychopathic behavior is stunning both historically and ongoing.

i see the sustainable alternatives with current tech to include timber,moving water and what?

in a few places pv or wind ,ground source heat pump,direct solar heating ,geothermal heat and what ? can add a bit small local scale energy input

with some joined up thinking savings via efficiency can be made

im almost getting to the idea of pumping out the selby field and hauling coal up to process/burn above ground to give us a base energy supply for a few years and spending the profit to do the r n d to get things sorted for long term with trees and moving water .
Hairyloon

late 19th/early 20th c was the time of the ascent of Rockefeller and the rest of the seven sisters who put a lot of effort into suppressing any energy supply they did not control be it small or huge .

So do we sit around moaning about it, or do we crack on with backyard microgeneration?

I was interrupted on the video, but what is this "bio-crude" which he seems to be working with?
dpack

a basic first distillation from twigs and a couple of dry cow pats

wood in a tin with no air inlet and an outlet for the gasses , get it hot and collect the tars/oils/resins by cooling the distillate

the clever bit is the catalytic cracking (a bit like big oil does from heavy crude to convert big molecules into more of the fractions that sell )
Hairyloon

the clever bit is the catalytic cracking (a bit like big oil does from heavy crude to convert big molecules into more of the fractions that sell )

Is it any more clever than how big oil does it?
dpack

no but it is quite clever with little but a scrap pile

i recon it would scale up to a drax/grangemouth size and with the reforesting could be suitable for maybe a 40% base line system for uk needs in electric and liquid fuels

as a back yard thing made from scrap tis a bit mad max but if needs must etc
Mistress Rose

I think we need to understand that there has to be a balance between farming, forestry and other land uses such as houses, industry and roads. The more we build or reforest land, the less food we grow, and the more we have to import. As a forester and firewood seller, I have an interest in wood fuel, but I do understand its limitations in a small country such as the UK. Wood is also heavy and bulky, so there is no point in moving large quantities about the country-say from Scotland and Wales to the SE of England as you are using more fuel than you save. Importing it makes even less sense on a massive scale for generation of power, wood oils etc. Hairyloon

i recon it would scale up to a drax/grangemouth size...
Is there a significant advantage to scaling it up so far?
Some things have obvious advantages to being big and centralised, but I am not seeing that this is one (perhaps because I am tired).

Also, since you can crack wood down to methane by simple pyrolysis, I am questioning the wisdom of distilling wood, then cracking the result: can it not be done in one reaction?

But really I am kicking myself for not yet doing that experiment, which I have been thinking about for an awful long time. Embarassed
dpack

the sporting estates do not produce much food or support a high population,the clearances did for the population and the sheep went to australia/nz a bit later,set aside produces no food nor do most forests

the reason to scale up is to provide a base feed for the national grid of leccy and gas

the reason to crack is to produce liquid fuel for transport needs and feedstock for plastics etc

so by my maths just those sources of timber would give us about half our energy needs ,a few places are suitable for tidal and might make another 20%,hydro another 10%say

that leaves about 30%to be supplied by wind/pv etc etc

a big stick cracker in scotland and another in the middle of the uk(maybe coastal or on the canal network for low transport energy use)would do the job
dpack

ps once sticks are liquified to biocrude as the chap calls it they will pump down pipes much like fossil crude does now .

edit so the energy forests could supply the refinaries from their distillation cookers by pipe and use the waste heat for local electric
Hairyloon

the reason to scale up is to provide a base feed for the national grid of leccy and gas

the reason to crack is to produce liquid fuel for transport needs and feedstock for plastics etc
You misunderstood my point. What is the advantage of having one big plant instead of several smaller ones?
dpack

the fossil oil crackers have found it efficient to move the crude to a central point and distribute the products from there rather than build a tiny refinery on top of each well

i assume it would be more sensible to do the same with biocrude with the distillation near the woods being cut and the fuel refining centralised in a few large plants
Hairyloon

the fossil oil crackers have found it efficient to move the crude to a central point and distribute the products from there rather than build a tiny refinery on top of each well

i assume it would be more sensible to do the same with biocrude
That does seem a reasonable assumption, but not one that puts it beyond questioning.
Quote:
with the distillation near the woods being cut and the fuel refining centralised in a few large plants

Except that you are then heating it twice.
dpack

heating twice is probably better than shifting sticks long distance and the waste heat can be harvested both times Mistress Rose

Dpack, I don't know about where you are, but in the south of England, most forested estates are known in forestry circles for their wood production. You probably think of Longleat for the safari park and Goodwood for the motor racing; in fact both of them have very good forestry enterprises.

You also have to remember that wood and timber of any sort need time to regrow. If you are not adding fertiliser, you are looking at a minimum of 5-7 years for coppice of willow or hazel of a size that could be used for making fuel, and both of these have other uses, or perhaps 40 years for softwood plantation, although you will get thinnings earlier.
Ty Gwyn

Personally,i think Wood would be a non starter,and not because i`m in favour of coal,

Just think of all the forestation that has taken place in the UK since WW2,i can only speak for Wales,but mainly Hill Farms,sheep farms,
Them sheep have been pushed down onto what was once Dairy farms.
So if the prospect is to plant more uplands and rough grazing with more tree`s,there will be another un -balance with livestock.

One only has to look at the amount of timber the farming industry uses`s per year,add on the building industry,and a good proportion is already imported.

That photo link i placed up of the shaft capping blown off,i wonder how many shafts in Lanc`s alone are just vented to the atmosphere or simply sealed,Lost energy.
Ty Gwyn

Best find some more sources of fuel,just heard the last 2 UK Coal Company Pits are on an 18mth closure plan,all funding has been withdrawn from Kellingley and Thorsby,around 1300 jobs involved. Rob R

Wood is also heavy and bulky, so there is no point in moving large quantities about the country-say from Scotland and Wales to the SE of England as you are using more fuel than you save. Importing it makes even less sense on a massive scale for generation of power, wood oils etc.

Bulk shipping is a pretty efficienct way of moving heavy loads though - perhaps we just need an canal revival.

The main issue with food & fuel production is that we have a short term attitude towards land based industries, even with the favourable inheritance tax arrangements. If we want an economy that relies on growing things we need that multigenerational view & a consumer with patience.
dpack

i was thinking mostly of the scottish sporting estates rather than english lowland park estates or even rough grazing used for sheep such as in wales cumbria etc . dpack

im coming to the conclusion that mining uk coal and using it for leccy/liquid fuel production above ground is probably the least awful option for the next 20 to 20 years or so whilst the trees grow and cracking sticks is developed along with big moving water and as much local/intermittent stuff as possible

the nuclear legacy we already have is enough to put me off that technology even with no accidents and rethinking it for thorium reactors

the rapidly expanding Chinese need for energy will make it very difficult for us to afford world market prices even if there was enough for all.
Ty Gwyn

If the info about Kellingley and Thorsby is correct,which i believe it is,
That only leaves Hatfield near Doncaster,which won`t last long,

The rest amounts to roughly 100 men working underground throughout the UK,

That leaves the opencast`s that are working at the moment,and the planned ones in the pipeline for quick returns,that`s it,
Coal is a dirty word,but has you are finding out Dpack,there`s a lot more dirt on the way.
Rob R

It does make you wonder what the outcome will be when centralisation comes to it's logical conclusion - will we turn full circle, once we've destroyed the skills and locations that were used to process and produce from primary industry. Ty Gwyn

Here you are,

http://www.nottinghampost.com/remaining-deep-Notts-needs-cash-injection/story-20879406-detail/story.html

But think on,UK Coal was in trouble last year,they were up to their ear`s in debt,Daw Mill their flagship ,the once coal factory was up against a fault,they were working to far from Pit and Drift bottom,there was badly needed a new Drift or Shaft the other side of the fault,no way of getting planning in that area,to much opposition to coal,so was due to close this spring,but a fire occured,they have had these before in this coalfield,but this one could`nt be put out,question is,was it worth putting out,the Colliery was due to close anyway,the company was in big debt,the pension deficit,but knowing this ,UK Coal divided up their company into if i`m correct,UK Coal and UK Holdings,the closed Colliery sites,development land worth more than the coal below,
I cannot think of the name of the company that took on the pension deficit liability,but after Osbourne`s visit last year to Thorsby,you can bet your top dollar it was Government bailed out,and was mentioned at the time,the new company took over Thorsby ,Kellingley and the UK Coal opencast sites,with the Coal Authority handling the close and sealing of Daw Mill.

Now we have UK Coal in trouble again,funding withdrawn,no money for development,end of story for these 2 Pits and 1300 jobs,but its been un-clear from the start who own`s these 2 Collieries,is the name UK Coal still kept and its Government owned in any other name,or are the original Directors of UK Coal still in charge and after more bailing out,after securing their Billions in the Holdings company,
No mention of the Opencast sites,but you`ll find that in the writings of the Energy Minister,were opencast Mining will be a quick fix situation to our energy problems,

Stock up on candles,this crowd have their heads so far up their arse`s they cannot see daylight.
Hairyloon

in the writings of the Energy Minister,were opencast Mining will be a quick fix situation to our energy problems...
I have here somewhere a letter from the Energy Minister: it is my considered opinion that he is a duckwit.
Ty Gwyn

in the writings of the Energy Minister,were opencast Mining will be a quick fix situation to our energy problems...
I have here somewhere a letter from the Energy Minister: it is my considered opinion that he is a duckwit.

I doubt very much he is a dick wit,him and his cronies most likely have shares in German Lignite generation,but also have a small wind turbine on his roof for good faith.
Rob R

in the writings of the Energy Minister,were opencast Mining will be a quick fix situation to our energy problems...
I have here somewhere a letter from the Energy Minister: it is my considered opinion that he is a duckwit.

I doubt very much he is a dick wit,him and his cronies most likely have shares in German Lignite generation,but also have a small wind turbine on his roof for good faith.

Probably one on their duck house, too.
Ty Gwyn

Here`s another story on the case,a bit more revealing into the business of UK Coal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-26799660
Mistress Rose

Although I think alternative forms of energy need to be developed, and fast, I agree with you that coal is the logical way to go for the foreseeable future Ty Gwyn.

I also agree with Rob that we need to look at multigenerational timescales as far as farming and forestry are concerned. There is no point in a having a plan for a maximum of 5 years for farming and still less for forestry where even a short rotation crop like hazel takes 5-9 years to come to cycle and the cropping time for oak trees can be 150 years. We are now cutting oak trees that were planted when ships were still made of wood.
dpack

im also coal for now ,prepare for later with all due diligence cos fracking/pyrolosis underground/nukes and fast depleting/too expensive for us is far worse

one of the first things to do in an attack on a country is turn out the lights so letting it happen without being attacked is plain stoopid
Ty Gwyn

Who said North Sea Gas is running out,

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/newly-discovered-north-sea-coal-could-power-britain-123321211.html#ylytDoU
Jamanda

More global warming then Sad dpack

"There have also been huge improvements in horizontal drilling . . . and in hydraulic fracturing [fracking], which lets us get the gas and oil out of rock. If we put aside the green issues, then in perhaps 10 years we could be self-sufficient in gas and possibly oil too."

umm the haliburton clause
dpack

lobby activity

the embedded links are rather interesting
Ty Gwyn

Personally i cannot see a problem if this coal is gasified or methane drained under the North Sea,its not much different to what`s going on under there now,
What its used for could be the problem.
dpack

the sea is not infinite but it is big and far away and even harder to tidy up if there is a problem.

undersea coal gassification would be the only sensible way to get the stuff out unlike most of the land based seams which can be hauled out in a bucket in a fairly tidy way.

im only pro coal until a practical sustainable option is running but we must have at least 50 yrs of land based coal to bridge the gap which strikes me as enough time if we started both together and 6 million acres of trees would offset a fair bit of the fossil carbon
Ty Gwyn

I think its a bit late to be Pro Coal ,for electricity generation,well UK mined,other than Opencast as them UK Coal links show what`s in the pipeline,they`ll Gas and Frack the living daylights out of the UK before they invest in deep mining again,and there`s so much been sterilized,
they reckon there`s 20 million ton under that shopping centre in Sheffield alone.

I don`t think we`ll ever have a sustainable green energy supply,the same as we`ll never have a sustainable food industry,
There`s just to many people wanting so much.
dpack

i was pro coal for energy in 1984(cos i recon oil is too valuable as a feedstock for plastics etc to burn) but i agree it is not likely to be the option of choice when the frackers and pyrologists can chuck millions at the pockets of the political types and the sustainable options are suppressed by the vested interests of big energy or are not viable cos they dont work.

nature has a history of dealing with unsustainability but to be comfortable now we should look to the future
Mistress Rose

We have been talking about sustainable energy since at least the 1970s and in that time there has been tremendous progress; I had a solar cell in the mid 1960s that was a newly developed 'toy' from Bell Laboratories in the US. On the other hand, there seems to have been less progress than there should have been because of vested interests. Yes, 50 years should be enough, but at the rate we have been going it won't be. mal55

Round here we have too many wind turbines. To one side of the village we have 24. Right behind us, planning was put in for 34. Permission was granted for 28 but there are now 34. just to the North of us there are another 20 going up. They are just oppressive
The amazing thing is, they will provide enough electricity for tens of thousands of homes -except on the calm days when none of the bloody things are going round and tens of thousands are gagging for a hot cuppa!
How about big water wheel things dunked into rivers like the Trent every 100 yards or so? -Mediaeval technology practically that works ALL the time.
Or what the Norwegians are piloting - electrodes on either side of the interface between saline and fresh ground water that act like a vast battery?
On the foresting of sporting estates, I'm with dpack.
We need to get away from fossil fuels, not grub out every last drop we possibly can. Fossil fuels are probably the biggest cause of greenhouse gases there is that we can do something about and unless we stop using them we are in trouble. Fine, up here in the nice (currently) cool North it may get pleasantly Mediterranean, but do those who hold all the aces really believe that those who live in the (currently) pleasantly Mediterranean to unbearably hot climates will sit there like good little boys and bemoan their fate? I'd bet money that they'll be doing there damndest to get themselves and families somewhere that's still inhabitable and woe betide anyone that tries to stop them.
I think we should also be looking into the so-called "suitcase" reactors as well as fuel cell technology which is readily achievable and would probably be widely available if it wasn't against the interests of the fossil fuel conglomerates that see petrol and deisel almost as waste products of the plastics industry.
Sorry for such a glum view.
oldish chris

Round here we have too many wind turbines. To one side of the village we have 24. Right behind us, planning was put in for 34. Permission was granted for 28 but there are now 34. just to the North of us there are another 20 going up. They are just oppressive. In the middle of Liverpool there is an array of wind turbines, just in front of the Coast Guards look-out station. A Coast Guard told me that the secret is to not watch them go round (and round and round and round....).

If they don't go round, they can't oppress. If they don't produce electricity, it ain't your problem.

IMHO too many wind turbines is as absurd as too many sausages.

I'd put as many across the Cotswolds as possible, and if the Nimbys protest, give them a choice: wind turbines, DRAX (with lorry loads of coal going through every village - on principle), nuclear (with lorry loads of nuclear waste going through every village - on principle) or AA naffing batteries.
mal55

Oldish Chris, It's not a case of too many wind turbines -it's a question of too many in one place and on LAND. out at sea I don't have a problem with them. But given that they are supposed to be an alternative to fossil fuels, they are building another gas fired power station right next door to these 34, doubling the capacity of the existing one.
One of the really stupid things was that RES were ordered to build a bridge over a railway line and canal to give access to their site instead of bringing all the construction traffic through the local villages and they tried to worm their way out of it by claiming the bridge would "destroy the visual amenity of such a flat landscape." No doubt where 330+ foot tall turbines that can be seen from 30 miles away don't.
Too many sausages now is an entirely different matter. That IS an absurdity.
Ty Gwyn

Mal,i would`nt be surprised if that new Gas power station they are building up by you ,is in readiness for the Fracking,CBM,CSG that is coming.

Your mention of Norway,they infact mine Coal 600mls off the Northern coast towards the artic circle at Svalbard islands,output around 2.5m tons,previously went to steel plant in Germany,now since its closure the coal goes to power stations.
dpack

a few turbines are a start but what is needed is a base line of many gwatts

my wood based idea will take maybe 30 yrs to be fully up and running

til then ?

at least with up the hole coal we know the technology works and can scrubbed for so2 particulates etc

moving water has a lot of potential

a sensible energy supply needs time,common sense and r n d ,it could be done but there are those who prefer cash now rather than a sensible future
mal55

Ty Gwyn, we'll need coal for a good while yet and being up here in the Northern "wastelands" the fracking will come whatever WE say. A lot of my family were miners and they have my full support now as they did during the miners strike.
I remember Scargill stating quite clearly that the issue wasn't money/wages, but the continuity and security of energy resources, without which the country would be hostage to whoever controlled the energy sources. Words that the media and Thatcher chose to ignore.
Our eldest son is planning an eventual move to France and is intending to "kidnap" us and taking us with them and is intending to be totally self sufficient in terms of energy and as self sufficient as possible in everything else. He is a bit of a mad genius type having been a design engineer for Lotus, designed parts of the engine for the Harrier replacement and designed the new generation hip, knee and shoulder joints along with the instruments to fit them.
He can build hydrogen systems for heating and cooking plus any turbines and solar systems we'd need. Me? I'm gonna learn French!

The real problem with energy production is that we are trying to provide enough for ever increasing numbers of people and an ideology of "economic growth" as the be all and end all. What we need is a stable and sustainable economy and a population (World-wide) that is in decline. We can't hope to ever reduce emission of greenhouse gases when the socio-politico-economic system requires permanent growth in order to provide unspeakable luxury for the few at the expense of everything else.
Ty Gwyn

Mal,in 18mths there won`t be any deep mined English coal going to power stations.

Thorsby is on an 18mth closure plan,
Kellingley is also proposing going into the 18mth closure plan,but there may be as many as 450 made redundant in May,leaving 250,there have been new targets set by UK Coal,that if achieved,the remaining Miner`s will get an extra 200 pounds on their redundancy,while the directors will achieve 2 1/2 times their redundancy packages,this is for a company that had a massive pension bail out package,transferring 75% ownership to the Pension company,sound`s a bit like the bankers again,
The rumour is the majority of the workforce will follow the 450,
Harworth ,which is mothballed is also going to be filled,after it was virtually re-built in 1989.
Leaving Hatfield which under a worker buyout i doubt they will have finances to develop a new working face,so its day`s are numbered.

But there`s plenty of Foreign coal to be shipped in,along with the American wood chips for Drax.

The future is quick return opencast`s and frack and Gas everything else.
oldish chris

Oldish Chris, It's not a case of too many wind turbines -it's a question of too many in one place and on LAND. is that the opinion of a consultant engineer or the poor bugger that has to look at them? mal55

I agree with you Ty Gwyn. Unfortunately, coal is seen as a commodity that makes more money for the right people if it's imported than it would if it was mined at home. I seem to remember a certain, rather divisive politician telling us how such dirty, dangerous, hard, demeaning work wasn't fit for British workers -not long before declaring the British workers not to want to do hard, manual labour.
Oldish Chris. It's the view of someone who lives within a distance of the bloody things that wouldn't be allowed in France. It's not just looking at them either, it's subsonics from them that can't be got rid of a it's caused by the difference in speed between the base and tips of the blades which IS the view of an extremely good design engineer. The trouble is that whichever way the wind blows from, or we look out of the village, they can't be avoided. Within a triangle around 12 miles on a side, there are planning permissions either passed or in the pipeline for over 140 turbines.
I don't have a problem with offshore turbines where, apart from providing power and jobs in support industries like ship building for the tenders (assuming they choose to build them here) they will also help improve fish stocks by providing artificial reefs and holding points whilst helping block the use of huge factory trawlers.
I'm quite happy about the use of small turbines that rotate anomometer fashion to power villages etc as they are pretty well silent, but if the huge windmill types are so harmless, why aren't they being built in our cities where the power is mostly used? And why are the 4 or 5 parishes that the 34 turbine factory at the back of us "affects", as RES put it' being paid around 200,000 a year for the next 25 years in compensation for it being there?
Sorry Chris. It's a beef of mine. There's an awful lot of info on them on the internet, including health issues which are played down by developers.
Hairyloon

Sorry Chris. It's a beef of mine. There's an awful lot of info on them on the internet, including health issues which are played down by developers.
And an awful lot that is made up by the fossil fuel industy and the NIMBY's...
Ty Gwyn

Mal,reckon them Yorkies are jealous of your new planned Gas power station and want an even bigger one,

http://email.thebusinessdesk.com/In/53656291/0/oRGXuJXN1er8CrxgGz1F1oQ%7egxu4ah9j_yslCZuFxM%7e/
mal55

Ty Gwyn, any energy/fuel decisions are purely political and economic and totally without regard to future generations or even decades. The likes of you and I are not considered to be a part of the "economy" which only runs for the benefit of bankers, poiticians, industrialists and MNCs.
I certainly can't see the sense in buying in inferior quality coal from abroad when we have so much of it ourselves unless it is because of the economics of greed and a woman who couldn't have done more to destroy the country if she'd been the fourth member of the Burgess-Maclean spy ring. (Just my opinion anyway.)
Like so many other things, politicians have run the energy "market" to suit themselves and those who can give them the most clout in their quest for more and more power and influence. We've reached the stage where we are dependent upon other states for just about everything including the means to defend ourselves. We've been told time after time by the government that we have no need for tanks, ships, planes, regular troops and the other paraphernalia of war because conventional warfare is finished. The great powers are all pally pally now and terrorism is all we need to fight, yet here we are with "our" side rushing troops to the Eastern borders of Europe to protect us against "their" side who are themselves led by a man who has screwed up their economy and is desperately trying to cover the fact up.
Got me on a rant again Embarassed
oldish chris

Sorry Chris. It's a beef of mine. There's an awful lot of info on them on the internet, including health issues which are played down by developers.
And an awful lot that is made up by the fossil fuel industy and the NIMBY's... But I have it on first hand, they really do cause mesmerisation. And it was Her Majesty's Coast Guards that were being affected.

Fortunately, half filling a Welsh valley with spoil has never ruined a view from the Wolds. (I remember 1966.)

Build a Fast Breeder Reactor in Mablethorpe!
Treacodactyl

Sorry Chris. It's a beef of mine. There's an awful lot of info on them on the internet, including health issues which are played down by developers.
And an awful lot that is made up by the fossil fuel industy and the NIMBY's... But I have it on first hand, they really do cause mesmerisation. And it was Her Majesty's Coast Guards that were being affected.

Fortunately, half filling a Welsh valley with spoil has never ruined a view from the Wolds. (I remember 1966.)

Build a Fast Breeder Reactor in Mablethorpe!

That's the problem with calling someone a NIMBY, it ignores the fact everyone is a NIMBY. Who wants a refuse dump, open cast mine, nuclear reactor, nuclear dump, fracking etc next door?

The problem with wind turbines is you still will need your coal mines, fracking, nuclear power stations or whatever and when you balance things up I'm yet to be convinced they are worth all the negatives. I'll concede they do act as a comfort blanket for some people to grasp whilst they carry on regardless.
sean

Panic not. Methane hydrate is coming. What can possibly go wrong? Nick

Panic not. Methane hydrate is coming. What can possibly go wrong?

I saw that, and thought of this thread. But, I knew it would end well.
oldish chris

Panic not. Methane hydrate is coming. What can possibly go wrong?

I saw that, and thought of this thread. But, I knew it would end well. best burn it asap, according to the "Warmists" AGW will release the methane in a few decades.

(Said the Troll Wink )
Hairyloon

There's an awful lot of info on them on the internet, including health issues which are played down by developers.
And an awful lot that is made up by the fossil fuel industry and the NIMBY's...

That's the problem with calling someone a NIMBY, it ignores the fact everyone is a NIMBY. Who wants a refuse dump, open cast mine, nuclear reactor, nuclear dump, fracking etc next door?
As it happens, I moved next to a tip deliberately and withintent.
In the context of wind turbines, it seems that "MBY" actually means anywhere within sight: as demonstrated by the farm off the North Wales coast.

Quote:
The problem with wind turbines is you still will need your coal mines, fracking, nuclear power stations or whatever

It is always windy somewhere.
Treacodactyl

Moving next to somewhere is different as you have a choice. As for windy somewhere, actually I don't think that's true for say England and Wales. Even if it is, it somewhat misses the obvious which is in needs to be sufficiently windy, but not too windy, everywhere for the turbines to generate the power they claim. Something that hardly ever happens.

I agree that many people complain just on looks and I'm far more concerned by their impact on noise and light.

However, even on looks people have a point in a country where you have to paint houses the right shade of pink or keep a roof thatched rather than change it to tiles. Issues that are somewhat overshadowed by a group of 150m turbines.
dpack

from personal experience nimbys are rather carp at actually getting important things changed

skilled niybys are rather more effective .

the anti turbine folk are two groups ,those who object to them in their sight and those,me included,who think them a red herring in terms of a sensible energy supply.the supporters of wind are those who profit and those who think them a panacea for energy supply.

"if one gets a 15% tithe of owning the seabed for instance and the installer/operator in which i am a major shareholder gets tax breaks one may support them" who might say a thing like that ?

while im on that tack 15% of the mineral licence rights for fracking ucg and a decent chunk of shares in the seven sisters might influence ones position.
Ty Gwyn



"if one gets a 15% tithe of owning the seabed for instance and the installer/operator in which i am a major shareholder gets tax breaks one may support them" who might say a thing like that ?


The Buck House brigade.






while im on that tack 15% of the mineral licence rights for fracking ucg and a decent chunk of shares in the seven sisters might influence ones position. dpack

the firm have fingers in a lot of pies Mistress Rose

Round here they seem to be keener to put in solar farms than wind turbines. I have no objection to them, but we are losing so much farmland to housing already I get rather worried about where our food will come from. dpack

Round here they seem to be keener to put in solar farms than wind turbines. I have no objection to them, but we are losing so much farmland to housing already I get rather worried about where our food will come from.

kenya ,brazil, peru etc until the chinese can out buy us on price and the us,ukraine etc until they wreck the soil or become russian
Eigon

Near Hereford there's a project going on to build a solar panel farm on land which was used for landfill. The ground is polluted, so it can't be used for grazing, growing crops or building houses, so this seems an ideal use to me. There are also groups locally which are looking at putting solar panels on the roofs of public buildings to provide energy for those buildings and the local community. Jamanda

Near Hereford there's a project going on to build a solar panel farm on land which was used for landfill. The ground is polluted, so it can't be used for grazing, growing crops or building houses, so this seems an ideal use to me. There are also groups locally which are looking at putting solar panels on the roofs of public buildings to provide energy for those buildings and the local community.

These are great ideas. Carpark shelters with solar panels seem to be a no brainer too.
Nick

Near Hereford there's a project going on to build a solar panel farm on land which was used for landfill. The ground is polluted, so it can't be used for grazing, growing crops or building houses, so this seems an ideal use to me. There are also groups locally which are looking at putting solar panels on the roofs of public buildings to provide energy for those buildings and the local community.

Where's this, please?
Hairyloon

There are also groups locally which are looking at putting solar panels on the roofs of public buildings to provide energy for those buildings and the local community.

Where's this, please?
Why is it not everywhere?
OtleyLad


the anti turbine folk are two groups ,those who object to them in their sight and those,me included,who think them a red herring in terms of a sensible energy supply.the supporters of wind are those who profit and those who think them a panacea for energy supply.


Ok its not windy 24/7 but surely for every KW you get from the wind it's less being produced by burning fossil fuels? Which I thought was the whole idea?

And the wind really is going to be there a long, long time after we've burned up all the fossil fuels.
mal55

Quote:
Round here they seem to be keener to put in solar farms than wind turbines. I have no objection to them, but we are losing so much farmland to housing already I get rather worried about where our food will come from.

Solar power is fine -but why do they need to take up farming land for it when there are so many rooftops which are essentialy waste space that could be used? We do need alternatives to fossil fuels, but we need to look seriously at the option of small scale nuclear power stations to be backed up by renewables that are sensibly developed, not just on the basis of how big a subsidy is paid to the developer and landowner by his pal in parliament.
Our local Superstore was powered by a couple of verically rotating turbines that stood about 35 feet tall, worked even in very light airs and were virtually silent -brilliant machines. They are no longer there so presumably they found them to be uneconomic. They are a brilliant design and don't impact on the "visual ammenity" the way the big turbines do.
Perhaps as an alternative (or addition to) to looking for alternative power sources, we shoild be looking at alternative power uses and practices. Where we used to work by daylight, we now have 24 hour business even when it's not necessary. We have office blocks lit up at all hours even when they are shut, buildings lit up for show and retail premises purposely designed without windows so that lights are permanently on. Surely if we used a little common sense it would be fairly simple to use less energy.
dpack

base load power is what is needed on a national grid system,wind is sporadic,solar is daytime ,moving water could do base load but at the mo needs a lot of development/big and small infrastructure investment.

the seven sisters have got the political class bought and we are going to be well fracked imho unless we fight clever
Eigon

The project where rooftops are being used is in Leominster - I think it's the New Leaf people who are involved. There was a talk about alternative energy at the Hay Spring Fair the other weekend where the subject came up. Hairyloon

we are going to be well fracked imho unless we fight clever
As I've said before: a civilized revolution with tea and cake.

I think it is the word "revolution" which puts people off: it puts them in mind of blood and anarchy.
mal55

How about using geo-thermal energy? There are these hot springs down at Bath that are just crying out for a series of ruddy great power stations. They could all be done out as exquistite Georgian palaces with cooling towers disguised as grecian columns.... Mistress Rose

Geothermal has been used for decades in Southampton. Not to much to see on the surface.

I agree that using roofs would be a good idea, but so many are at the wrong angle or get partial shading.

We will always need something to be a base and using solar or wind power will make calculating which power station to call up when even more difficult. It shouldn't be impossible though, and using lots of micro feedins from all over the country using different forms of power will help.

Using natural light for buildings is also a good idea but does tend to limit their size. It might at least prevent a power cut resulting in an emergency in supermarkets where they have to have emergency lighting so the customers can be evacuated.

The very old electric tills used to have a handle that could be wound to keep them going during power cuts. I remember one in the canteen where I worked being operated that way during a power cut. The language of the operator was not what you would like a lady to use though, so I gather it was hard work. Very Happy
Hairyloon

I agree that using roofs would be a good idea, but so many are at the wrong angle or get partial shading.
Many many aren't.

One problem which ought to be easy to address is terraces: each house may not have enough roof for a sensible PV array, but between them there is plenty. The difficulty is logistics and legalities. Neither of which should be too hard to overcome.
Mistress Rose

Our roof faces south and looks like a good candidate for solar panels but we have a pylon line to the south that casts a shadow most of the day. It would be enough to make most of the array inoperable. That's the sort of thing I mean; trees, cables, lots of things can make them fail. mal55

I think most of the current solar panels work on ambient or amorphous light or something. It doesn't need to be bright sunlight -just light. Obviously the sunnier it is the better they work though.
How you get around the problem of only having electricity during daylight is to store the energy produced as hydrogen then use that to power generators.
Personally I don't have a problem with nuclear power. There seem to be a lot of smal-scale "suitcase" reactors being proposed now. they are certainly available and have been used by the military for years to power submarines and stuff. Yes a Russian one sank and leaked, but if you put in the same sort of safety systems used at Fukushima they'd be pretty safe. So long as you didn't build them in eartquake zones anyway.
We seem to be quite happy to use nuclear power as long as we don't actually produce it in our own country.
Hairyloon

How you get around the problem of only having electricity during daylight is to store the energy produced as hydrogen then use that to power generators.
There are promising developments in flywheels.
dpack

thermal heat from a nuclear source is relatively safe until it goes badly wrong,windscale/chenoble/fukashima etc but there is a huge issue with both pre and post use fuel as well as the issues with weaponisation of nuclear programs(what other sort are there ?)

the so called suitcase reactors and thermal decay units need fuel from slow neutron reactors being chemically seperated etc etc etc

nuke is very messy tech in my well informed opinion and i have no choice in the matter cos the men with guns seem to like it.
Mistress Rose

Nuclear energy does have the disadvantages you say Dpack, and the spent rods will take centuries to decay to a safe level.

Basically you need a method or storing energy produced by solar or other variable power sources, so hydrogen, flywheels, pumping water up hill, anything like that will do. The point to remember is that each stage you lose some energy, so the fewer stages the better.
Nick

The project where rooftops are being used is in Leominster - I think it's the New Leaf people who are involved. There was a talk about alternative energy at the Hay Spring Fair the other weekend where the subject came up.

Thanks. Do you have info on the landfill stuff you mentioned?
mal55

Quote:
The point to remember is that each stage you lose some energy, so the fewer stages the better.

You also lose power the as you move it through the grid system so the closer to the point of use it is produced the better -another reason why turbines belong in the cities where the power is used rather than the countryside.
I'm pretty sure that something could be done with the effect skyscrapers have on wind -turbulence, tunneling, updrafts etc.
dpack

cities are far too turbulent of air flow for wind turbines to work well.they need a steady flow between a min and max wind speed hence off shore settings and on flat unobstructed land.
they have a part to play ,maybe,but are not going to be able to do either base load or enough to provide energy even with efficiency and reduction of demand.

as water is a thousand times more dense than air it has a lot more potential for energy harvest from a moving thing.for near town energy harvest water wheel tech has a lot of merit.
Hairyloon

You also lose power the as you move it through the grid system...
Transmission loss is a lot less than many people think it is: it is proportional to the inverse square of the voltage and the big pylons run at 100kV+

Quote:
I'm pretty sure that something could be done with the effect skyscrapers have on wind -turbulence, tunneling, updrafts etc.

I agree: there is a notorious one here in Leeds that funnels the wind enough to blow lorries over. There is a lot of energy there, but as dpack says: far too turbulent for normal turbines, we need another way to do it.
I did see a promising article on aerodynamic flutter, but I would expect it to be very noisy.
Hairyloon

cities are far too turbulent of air flow for wind turbines to work well.they need a steady flow...
Obviously a steady flow is the ideal, and a big turbine has a lot of inertia to overcome, but can a small turbine not cope with erratic wind much better?
dpack

even worse than a big one

the vertical two half tube types can do turbulence but are very bad at converting moving air energy into electric

the main problem with all types is converting the torque from a variable speed into something a generator can use efficiently ,ie too slow nowt ,too fast burnout or spitting bolts
dpack

ive built a few model experimental scale ones and getting spin is easy ,getting leccy is not.

with moving water every few metres of drop can be harvested like the one above it and even quite a small flow (especially with the use of ponds and leats)can produce useful local energy as it is fairly easy to get the gearing right to drive a generator at near optimum speed.
Mistress Rose

Round here we used to have several tide mills. There is only one left now, but that would be a more reliable source of power, all be it that it is limited in time.

I think we are at the stage where we have to explore and exploit a number of different forms of renewable energy. With any luck one will complement the other.

My father, who was an electrical engineer and remembered before the grid, was a great fan of it. I think that while it is useful and necessary, more microgeneration, particularly near the point of use is a good way to go.
Cathryn

cities are far too turbulent of air flow for wind turbines to work well.they need a steady flow...
Obviously a steady flow is the ideal, and a big turbine has a lot of inertia to overcome, but can a small turbine not cope with erratic wind much better?

And especially if they are used as a pr exercise. Rolling Eyes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182

However the other figures quoted below the wind turbine problems are more positive. Presumably all public buildings are now built in this way.

I noticed a lot of fields full of solar panels in Somerset and Devon on a recent trip. None of them had sheep grazing under them. Is that because they were in different fields at the time or because solar panel supports don't take kindly to be used as back scratchers?
Hairyloon

I noticed a lot of fields full of solar panels in Somerset and Devon on a recent trip. None of them had sheep grazing under them. Is that because they were in different fields at the time or because solar panel supports don't take kindly to be used as back scratchers?
A friend of mine has been doing some work at a solar farm and he was raving about how well the sheep were doing, so I'd guess they were just elsewhere.
Cathryn

On a smaller scale we have just started talking to Matilda's Planet about the products they make. Very provisional chats at the moment so nothing may come of it but they sound fun, which of course should not be the main criteria but it would be hard to resist this in a room. I'd love this on the roof but I think wind turbulence would make it impossible. Price of course has nothing to do with it... Nick

It's possible that not everyone wants sheep. Wink
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Home Home Home Home