Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

pile-o-stone wrote: »

And with a lot less turbines. 68 old turbines replaced by 13 modern ones. Or you can fit 68 new turbines and generate five times the amount of energy.

Probably not, larger turbines need more space around them for the blades and for turbulence. Looking at some photos of the site the turbines are in neat rows, probably best if you don't have your turbines crashing into each other all the time.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

They’re fine if you live in a city and don’t live near one. There is an argument they look absolutely spectacular in the distance on top of a hill on barren moorland. Once you get closer to them the aesthetics wear off and the sheer size of them dominates the local landscape. So like everything there are arguments for and against. In the right place, maybe, but not everywhere.

I live in a city, and see one (a 2.3MW WT) everyday when I walk the dogs as it's only 1.25 miles from my house. Used to visit it regularly on my bike to see it up close as it's stunning. What's not to love.

I'm sure there are many more IMBY's around like me, and it helps distract from the railway lines, two sets of pylons, local tip, steel works, concrete flyover, 5 small industrial estates ........

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

So you saw the title page and there was no need to go further.

“1 - GA had posted it.
2 - It was from the REF
3 - It was from 2012 and we've never heard anything like that.

Conclusion, absolute garbage, posted to knock RE”

Slam dunk! No point in actually reading the article or the accompanying post.

......... and I was 100% correct wasn't I. :rotfl:

JKenH wrote: »

This thread is suffering from Groupthink.

Nope, it's suffering from experience, and the experience on here, from RE supporters, has been spot on.

Remember you are the guy that tried to promote opinions over facts. You even stated (twice now) that facts somehow stop being facts after a decade - never heard of a fact not being a fact before*, but you can argue against RE, promote GA, support the FF industries and even believe the Earth is flat, if you want, but it doesn't mean anyone else should listen to you.

*Black Swan events aren't facts not being facts, but widely assumed claims being wrongly labeled as facts.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I live in a city, and see one (a 2.3MW WT) everyday when I walk the dogs as it's only 1.25 miles from my house. Used to visit it regularly on my bike to see it up close as it's stunning. What's not to love.

I'm sure there are many more IMBY's around like me, and it helps distract from the railway lines, two sets of pylons, local tip, steel works, concrete flyover, 5 small industrial estates ........

As I said “In the right place, maybe, but not everywhere.” That does sounds like the right place so it’s good that you are taking one for the rest of us.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

As I said “In the right place, maybe, but not everywhere.” That does sounds like the right place so it’s good that you are taking one for the rest of us.

Sounds like the 'right place' is anywhere you are not?

pile-o-stone

ABrass wrote: »

Probably not, larger turbines need more space around them for the blades and for turbulence. Looking at some photos of the site the turbines are in neat rows, probably best if you don't have your turbines crashing into each other all the time.

lol, true, I didn't consider that

Solarchaser

Weirdest post I've ever read Ken.

You made a statement about WT being bad for health and noise, then quoted an article saying it wasnt.
Said it devalued housing, and the article states they were less desirable as ex mod.

No need to disagree with you, you made a point and then disproved it with your own facts.

Awesome:D

The clean technica article about the tipper... sorry but I dont buy it.

The energy it generates through regeneration going down a hill cannot be more than it expands climbing the same hill.
You have energy losses through heat, through mechanical interaction, even the traction of the tyres against the road.

The tipper is surely carrying a heavier load up the hill than down the hill, so would use more energy.

Oh hold on, is this assumption biting me in the bum?
Is it taking loads into the pit and dumping them there?
Then it would make sense, as it has a heavier load going down than going up, so more energy going down than coming up....

Solarchaser

Yeah, read it again, it goes down with a full load, and drops them.
Doh!

Great use of tech though

zeupater

Solarchaser wrote: »

Yeah, read it again, it goes down with a full load, and drops them.
Doh!

Great use of tech though

Hi

It's effectively the same as Tesla's planned (& seemingly tested!) delivery of batteries from the Nevada plant to the assembly plant in California using electrified trucks with full (heavy) load delivered from higher elevation with empty/part (lighter) loads on the return journey ... really confounded many industry watchers & social media commentator calculations for a while when announced, until the penny finally dropped! ...

... it's not as if the solution is new though ... inclined plane & fenicular railways have essentially been doing exactly the same thing just using mass differential as a power source for over 2 centuries ...

HTH
Z

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Weirdest post I've ever read Ken.

You made a statement about WT being bad for health and noise, then quoted an article saying it wasnt.
Said it devalued housing, and the article states they were less desirable as ex mod.

No need to disagree with you, you made a point and then disproved it with your own facts.

Awesome:D

The clean technica article about the tipper... sorry but I dont buy it.

The energy it generates through regeneration going down a hill cannot be more than it expands climbing the same hill.
You have energy losses through heat, through mechanical interaction, even the traction of the tyres against the road.

The tipper is surely carrying a heavier load up the hill than down the hill, so would use more energy.

Oh hold on, is this assumption biting me in the bum?
Is it taking loads into the pit and dumping them there?
Then it would make sense, as it has a heavier load going down than going up, so more energy going down than coming up....

Yeah sorry about that. Bit rushed and it wasn’t the best example but it was brief. Here is a paper on house prices which confirms there is an effect. Have a read of that. It would seem counterintuitive for a WT not to affect prices. If you don’t think that one answers the question, I’ll have a look for some others. Important I get the facts right. I’ll try and dig out some more stuff on health issues later but I think best not to bung the forum up with too many posts on the same thing. I only put the bit in about property prices and health in response to Ed’s reply to my first post about lobbying.
http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/textonly/SERC/publications/download/sercdp0159.pdf

About the truck - yeah we can all read things incorrectly first time, no worries, it wasn’t my post anyway. Maybe a bit of subconscious bias crept in expecting me to have got it wrong. What we are expecting can affect how we read things.