Wind Turbine Fail, Service Life Is Just 50% Of That Quoted By The Wind Industry

http://toryaardvark.com/2012/12/19/wind-turbine-fail-service-life-is-just-50-of-that-quoted-by-the-wind-industry/

another green lie exposed.

Doesn't surprise me, most estimations like this are generous to the truth.

mattiducatti wrote:Doesn't surprise me, most estimations like this are generous to the truth.

the biggest lie is that wind farms will save the world. they need a real power station to back them up as they work hardly ever.

Flap Meister wrote:the biggest lie is that wind farms will save the world. they need a real power station to back them up as they work hardly ever.

I don;t think anyone has ever said they would, just that they can help.

Nuclear is the way to go though

What about thorium?

mattiducatti wrote:What about thorium?

Its still in research as far as I know, we need to fix it now, so standard nuclear plants should be built and more research into thorium

I'm the king wrote:

Flap Meister wrote:the biggest lie is that wind farms will save the world. they need a real power station to back them up as they work hardly ever.

I don;t think anyone has ever said they would, just that they can help.

Nuclear is the way to go though

some people seem to think they are the answer, judging by the crazy way governments have bought into it, without realising they need a 100% backup of conventional power generation for those innumerable times when it it the wrong sort of wind, too hot, too cold or the bloody things have fallen over or sunk into the sea.
yes nuclear is probably the best solution.

mattiducatti wrote:What about thorium?

as in thorium hirdium?

Flap Meister wrote:some people seem to think they are the answer, judging by the crazy way governments have bought into it, without realising they need a 100% backup of conventional power generation for those innumerable times when it it the wrong sort of wind, too hot, too cold or the bloody things have fallen over or sunk into the sea.
yes nuclear is probably the best solution.

I still don't think anyone thinks they are THE answer, just AN answer.

The good thing about the wind turbines is that the more we rely on them just now, the stronger the case for nuclear becomes.

As i always say.............no need for nuclear...........every house can easily become its own "power" station, what we need is for governments to allow development and installation of these products.....however lets remember if you are pretty much self sufficient then you are not paying much tax on your fuel............we have the products and the infastructure in place now to be self sufficient.......

scottamylola wrote:As i always say.............no need for nuclear...........every house can easily become its own "power" station, what we need is for governments to allow development and installation of these products.....however lets remember if you are pretty much self sufficient then you are not paying much tax on your fuel............we have the products and the infastructure in place now to be self sufficient.......

I think you are talking about CHP.

The issue with CHP is that we still need gas (the government would easily increase tax on this to cover any lost by electricity) is that we still need gas, yes we can produce some by anaerobic digestion, but even the greatest estimates of the capacity of production in the UK falls way short of the requirement.

that is the only way your can consistently produce electricity in your home, all the others would need a back up, which is where nuclear comes in.

I'm the king wrote:

I think you are talking about CHP.

The issue with CHP is that we still need gas (the government would easily increase tax on this to cover any lost by electricity) is that we still need gas, yes we can produce some by anaerobic digestion, but even the greatest estimates of the capacity of production in the UK falls way short of the requirement.

that is the only way your can consistently produce electricity in your home, all the others would need a back up, which is where nuclear comes in.

CHP is only "part" of the solution........yes you still need gas and yes anaerobic digestion is one part but you also have bio gas (like i said aswell we already have the gas infrastructure in place) and we also have fracking....

You could also use underground thermals..........ie when you bore drill to a level and reach a steady temperature of water however that is still hit and miss and expensive (at the moment)......you also have biomass and biomass CHP on residential and commercial scales........also you have solar PV and solar thermal.......and lets not forget the development of fuel cells either.......

Believe me you can use a combination of products to be completely self sustainable but regulations make it pretty impossible and very expensive to do so...........

One example is a company i deal with have provided enough CHP units that they have now produced enough electricity to supply Birmingham for a year..............the fact that CHP is actually old technology is quite concerning as it shows just how things have been suppressed with regs........

I'm the king wrote:

Flap Meister wrote:some people seem to think they are the answer, judging by the crazy way governments have bought into it, without realising they need a 100% backup of conventional power generation for those innumerable times when it it the wrong sort of wind, too hot, too cold or the bloody things have fallen over or sunk into the sea.
yes nuclear is probably the best solution.

I still don't think anyone thinks they are THE answer, just AN answer.

The good thing about the wind turbines is that the more we rely on them just now, the stronger the case for nuclear becomes.

wind power is fine as an additional generation resource, but government and greenies seem to think it is a replacement.

scottamylola wrote:

CHP is only "part" of the solution........yes you still need gas and yes anaerobic digestion is one part but you also have bio gas (like i said aswell we already have the gas infrastructure in place) and we also have fracking....

You could also use underground thermals..........ie when you bore drill to a level and reach a steady temperature of water however that is still hit and miss and expensive (at the moment)......you also have biomass and biomass CHP on residential and commercial scales........also you have solar PV and solar thermal.......and lets not forget the development of fuel cells either.......

Believe me you can use a combination of products to be completely self sustainable but regulations make it pretty impossible and very expensive to do so...........

One example is a company i deal with have provided enough CHP units that they have now produced enough electricity to supply Birmingham for a year..............the fact that CHP is actually old technology is quite concerning as it shows just how things have been suppressed with regs........

Bio gas is still limited, and biomass still not very efficient, shale gas still relies on fossil fuels. the thermals is good for heating but not electricity and as you say still hit and miss. has there been any news on the bore hole at the centre for life?

On a small scale it is probably possible to be self sustainable in the good time, but when things go wrong or you need more power you need a reliable back up.

also it would be better for 1 big generator than a thousand small ones, the rule of thumb on size cannot be ignored. it'd be better to have a large base of renewables backed up by nuclear in my opinion.

As I said before there is no one answer and all of these things would play a big part.

Thorium is not new technology, but rather, it is as old as the nuclear age itself, with research ongoing since its inception.  The first nuclear reactors in America and Russia were fuelled by thorium.  It was then dismissed by policy-makers – the key reason being that the thorium fuel cycle provides no opportunity for obtaining bomb materials.

http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:thorium-as-a-secure-nuclear-fuel-alternative&catid=94:0409content&Itemid=342

I'm the king wrote:

Bio gas is still limited, and biomass still not very efficient, shale gas still relies on fossil fuels. the thermals is good for heating but not electricity and as you say still hit and miss. has there been any news on the bore hole at the centre for life?

On a small scale it is probably possible to be self sustainable in the good time, but when things go wrong or you need more power you need a reliable back up.

also it would be better for 1 big generator than a thousand small ones, the rule of thumb on size cannot be ignored. it'd be better to have a large base of renewables backed up by nuclear in my opinion.

As I said before there is no one answer and all of these things would play a big part.

Your missing my point.............basically what i am saying is we have the infastructure already in place and to bring other technologies upto speed will be easier and more cost effective than building more nuclear power plants......that suprisingly wont be owned by the British but subsidised by the British ha......

It's strange isn't it that the opportunities to build and create infrastructure here have been given to foreign firms, wind farms, that train contract a while ago, power plants etc......

mattiducatti wrote:
It's strange isn't it that the opportunities to build and create infrastructure here have been given to foreign firms, wind farms, that train contract a while ago, power plants etc......

Its all to do with the "boys club"...............i might be looking way to much into it but i am in this industry and some things.....very simple things could be done to assist our need for power BUT for some reason they won't do it...............when i say little things its basically just regs thats all.........but they are adamant for nuclear which will cost billions upon billions instead..........it does make you think.......