Wind Farms: even more useless than suspected

Out of interest, which environmentalists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw a thing on the BBC about that. Some bloke who has spent years photographing the Great Barrier Reef has noticed that it has changed. I think his opinion of the cause of this was pure speculation.
 

FHA

LE
I noted today that the UN are insisting that carbon producing energy production has to stop by the end of the century as a matter of high urgency. So in 86 years we'll be back in the stone-age. Unless of course that common sense prevails and it is accepted that nuclear sourced electricity production has to be the way ahead, starting very, very soon.

Strange how one of the tenets of environmentalism, used to foist useless renewables on us, is that fossil fuels are running out. Sounds like a self solving problem to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oh, my so your an environmental wizard scientist are you?

Your wonderful marine life evolution theory has only today been debunked on BBC by several notable environmentalists who suggest that severe damage has already been done to coral reefs by acidification and that a signifcant number of species will die out completely if acidification continues.

So I suggest that you find a nice large tree trunk, sharpen it up and place it where the sun doesn't shine on your anatomy because you sure don't need your arrse for sh!tting with the amount that comes out of your mouth! Matey.

So you are saying that SOME damage to coral reefs is something that is happening across the world's oceans, and to the plankton you mentioned earlier? So you are saying that said marine life cannot and will not adapt to changes in their environment?

So you think the BBC is an unbiased source, and that the "environmentalists" who talk to them are unbiased and will only issue statements based on solid scientific evidence?

Oh, and you had better look again at the threats to reefs, the biggest threats do not actually come from "CO²" and "acidification", so try again on that one.

And finally, since you have no answer to anything I said I can only assume you are the sort of person who would believe that the sky is green and the grass is black if you were told so by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. You have no clue about what you are wittering about, and it shows. You best go back to making turds with Play-Doh, for that is clearly all your intellect allows.
 
I saw a thing on the BBC about that. Some bloke who has spent years photographing the Great Barrier Reef has noticed that it has changed. I think his opinion of the cause of this was pure speculation.

If one of these people sharts because of eating too much tofu and mung bean sandwiches, they'll blame it on "global warming".

That is the limit of their ability to figure out what the cause of anything is.
 

Mobat

LE
Your wonderful marine life evolution theory has only today been debunked on BBC by several notable environmentalists who suggest that severe damage has already been done to coral reefs by acidification and that a signifcant number of species will die out completely if acidification continues.
Species are going extinct all the time, that is what evolution is about: the less successful species die and the more successful ones take their place. So you and the BBC clearly do not understand what evolution is.

A change in the environment, such as the Ph of the oceans will alter the outcomes, but I see no reason to suppose it will be for the worse.
 
I saw a thing on the BBC about that. Some bloke who has spent years photographing the Great Barrier Reef has noticed that it has changed. I think his opinion of the cause of this was pure speculation.
Coral degradation has also been linked to pollution and human interference I.e fishing.

This issue like most have several contributing factors but we only ever seem to discuss the CO2 issue.
 
I too have a current involvement in one part of green energy (Anaerobic digestion) and had an involvement in a tidal scheme (which worked). I have thus encountered much of this bollocks up front. As always, naïve scientists have their words taken out of context by idiot egotists (typically resident in Westminster or luvvieland) and the net result is that Joe Public makes a capitalist wealthy.

HOWEVER
1. There is a diminishing supply of oil (and a finite amount once we've found it all).
2. Energy demand rises both as a function of population and energy consumption per head.
3. Pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere will change it, possibly not in a good way.
4. Wind (and tide) is abundant and free.
5. Historically the clean up costs of energy have been borne by the public purse through general taxation, rather than the private purchaser of energy at the time of purchase.
6. For some reason God (or Allah) put much of the oil in the middle east, thereby ensuring that the price is pretty volatile in a pretty much unpredictable way. At $100/barrel fracking makes economic sense, at $60 it doesn't.

Until a wind generation network exists that is the size of a weather cell (i.e. 1,000nm north to south, which covers England and France) the wind will not always be blowing on a part of the wind network, which will keep yields low. I think that making this happen also needs an upgrade to the cross channel connector.

the CO2 budget of making windmills is something that I have not investigated. But I bet its better than solar panels, which are all the rage down here.

The financial cost makes sense, but only because of subsidy - but that it true of nuclear as well. Point (5) above explains and for sure its cheaper to build a few hundred onshore windmills than it is a nuclear power station.

Yup Al Gore is an idiot (losing an election to GW Bush FFS) and many of greens avoid financial agendas. But the latter is true of many of those who don't support renewables. I now only believe numbers that I have worked out myself, or come from a source that I thoroughly respect (and there ain't many of them). Do landowners make much from a windmill - not really. They get market rent plus a bit. The operator makes affair profit, but much of that goes to the investor, which is often the government by another name. Even if it isn't the government, the rich get richer - big surprise.

Is biomass bollocks. Almost certainly. Are the maths right on the CO2 calculations supporting biomass, not sure but I haven't seen any claims.

Why are we in such a hurry - prats in Westminster decided to outdo prats in Brussels in meeting some meaningless target. What they should have been doing was investigating nuclear.

Moral of story - don't vote for people you would not employ.


How good is AD?
 

Rod924

LE
Kit Reviewer
8 year thread resurrection! Not bad, not bad at all squire.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
How good is AD?
At what?
In a closed vessel it converts organic matter to CO2 CH4 and a grat fertiser. The CO2 / CH4 mix can etither power a generator or be cleaned up and injected into the grid.

Remember, CH4 is 30 to 100 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2 so AD significantly reduce emissions as all organic matter rots producing CH4. This includes woodland, which is why the climate benefits of woodland seem to be downgraded now and then.
 
At what?
In a closed vessel it converts organic matter to CO2 CH4 and a grat fertiser. The CO2 / CH4 mix can etither power a generator or be cleaned up and injected into the grid.

Remember, CH4 is 30 to 100 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2 so AD significantly reduce emissions as all organic matter rots producing CH4. This includes woodland, which is why the climate benefits of woodland seem to be downgraded now and then.

The pros are very obvious but what are the cons?
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Capital cost - which means they need subsidy to work.
And if the feed stock is grown as that there's a food v fuel debate. If it uses food waste that diminishes, but there will be HGV movements
 
Capital cost - which means they need subsidy to work.
And if the feed stock is grown as that there's a food v fuel debate. If it uses food waste that diminishes, but there will be HGV movements

Perhaps with more larger scale investments capital cost could reduce?

From what I’ve read it seems like compost bin contents, food waste, silage, manure, brown waste, water/sewage treatment waste, oils, etc etc could be the way to go?

Could possibly negatively impact the efficiency of the AD and use of digestate though?

Due to the HGV requirements that means they should be more regionally focused I would think?

Also selling the gas into the grid, the digestate to the farmers, producing electricity (on-site if not selling gas to the grid) would help offset the costs?

Could the excessive heat produced be “recycled” to speed up the AD ?
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Perhaps with more larger scale investments capital cost could reduce?
Unlikely - it's a mature technology. There are hundreds in UK and thousands in Europe.
From what I’ve read it seems like compost bin contents, food waste, silage, manure, brown waste, water/sewage treatment waste, oils, etc etc could be the way to go?
Sort of. There are issues with pathogens, so pasteurisation is necessary. Sewage plants are plumbed into the sewage mains.

An AD is in effect a bacteria farm, if you keep the bacteria healthy then yields are good. Changing diet quickly is not good for yields, and can lead to problems, foaming and rupture of seals / covers.

Due to the HGV requirements that means they should be more regionally focused I would think?
More like town focused. There have been some large AD, but diesel costs eat into the profitability; that's not getting better.

Also selling the gas into the grid, the digestate to the farmers, producing electricity (on-site if not selling gas to the grid) would help offset the costs?
Indeed, that's the basic business model but it doesn't stack up without subsidy.

Could the excessive heat produced be “recycled” to speed up the AD ?
Ad operate at around 30 C. There are some that operate at higher temperatures, approx 70 C but that causes insulation needs that inflate capital costs. The energy input to pasteurize (as is necessary on any AD running on foodwaste) is substantail. Recovery happens, but you're into the realm of very large and expensive stainless steel heat exchangers. (As well as the macerators, depackaging lines, metal recovery, pumps etc. and a couple of mechanial loaders (JGB Telehandlers). And thats just getting the stuff into the AD tank - or, more likely, the pre AD holding tank as feedstock arrives during working hours but bacteria need feeding all the time.

They work, they reduce emissions and they produce energy and excellent fertilizer. But they are far from simple to operate and are definitely not cheap.
 
Thanks for the replies @Cynical

Some are using biodiesel to fuel the HGVs which can be a byproduct of AD

So the 30 C plants aren’t insulated? Surely it costs more to heat them then (or is it just natural heat used?)?

If the European mainland AD is a mature industry are they profitable because of subsidies? I won’t is there another way of reducing the cost (tax etc ?)?

Cheap is comparison to oil and gas prices now? Which are only likely to go up

Many thanks this is really interesting

I understand that AD isn’t going to save the world but every little helps
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Thanks for the replies @Cynical

Some are using biodiesel to fuel the HGVs which can be a byproduct of AD

So the 30 C plants aren’t insulated? Surely it costs more to heat them then (or is it just natural heat used?)?

If the European mainland AD is a mature industry are they profitable because of subsidies? I won’t is there another way of reducing the cost (tax etc ?)?

Cheap is comparison to oil and gas prices now? Which are only likely to go up

Many thanks this is really interesting

I understand that AD isn’t going to save the world but every little helps
Biogas is an HGV fuel from AD. Biodiesel comes from a different process.
30C plants are insulated - 70C plant needs more
Subsidy of agriculture and renewables is complicated.. but yes
 
I will assume that we are all aware that nothing lasts forever, everything eventually returns to basic elements. So why are we attempting to prolong the natural cycle of life on earth? If your beliefs are religious, humanism or agnostic you either go to a heaven or reincarnate (eventually) lets be a little more fatalist and continue to consume and procreate, all the solutions to our problems are just around the corner or not. Civilizations have risen and fallen, creatures have become extinct or adapted, so let’s just chill have a beer and let it happen.
 
I will assume that we are all aware that nothing lasts forever, everything eventually returns to basic elements. So why are we attempting to prolong the natural cycle of life on earth? If your beliefs are religious, humanism or agnostic you either go to a heaven or reincarnate (eventually) lets be a little more fatalist and continue to consume and procreate, all the solutions to our problems are just around the corner or not. Civilizations have risen and fallen, creatures have become extinct or adapted, so let’s just chill have a beer and let it happen.

Good point. We either get to grips with population growth and use of ALL resources, or keep going towards extinction with life getting worse and worse along the way.

Building windmills and banning carrier bags isn't going to make any difference.
 
Good point. We either get to grips with population growth and use of ALL resources, or keep going towards extinction with life getting worse and worse along the way.

Building windmills and banning carrier bags isn't going to make any difference.
I’m more of the opinion that as conditions get critical mans ingenuity will solve many of our problems and if not I’m sure another species will raise there own new civilization.
If humanity is driven to extinction we’ve had a good innings.
 

Latest Threads

Top