davyboy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 This argument is going round and round in circles mainly due to two interpretations of the word "free". It's a long time since I studied Phys Chem so bear with me. Suppose that Pete Morris lives in small hovel in the middle of a forest, both of which which he has inherited from a distant relative and has therefore cost Pete nothing.It was free according to Pete's definition. All around his house are tons of dry wood which he can collect and burn for heating and lighting and again this cost Pete nothing and is "free energy". However in the other definition of "free" it is not free energy. Pete expends energy(it's hot work) wandering around collecting the wood which is dispersed randomly around the forest. It won't collect itself nor will it spontaneously arrange itself into a heap and so Pete has to expend more energy to get his fire. The neat pile of wood won't spontaneously combust and Pete has to provide a source of heat to get his logs burning, so he has to more put energy into the system to release the energy locked in the logs as heat and light That locked in energy was originally provided by the sun and used very inefficiently by trees to provided the wood that Pete is burning. In time of course the easily collected wood will be used up and Pete will have to expend a lot more energy cutting the trees down and sawing them into logs to maintain his free lifestyle. So in this case there is no such thing as "free" energy. Most of my replies to posts seem to stop them dead so perhaps we can all agree to nicely disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Only if the equipment required actually lasts long enough to pay back for its cost of manufacture. Will it really keep working fault free for decades? No, but decades of fault free operation is not what is required. Low tech is the answer - there are waterwheels and windmills that are centuries old, copper windings have an almost indefinite lifespan, magnets I'm unsure of, but there are working DC motors more than a century old as well. Ingenuity, a good site, and some kick-ass carpentry skills would do the job. That and a lot of hard graft of course. I'd be inclined to go the micro-hydro route. He'd need to scale down his power consumption, but that goes for all of us tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'd rather go nuclear. Then we might have enough electricity to start making petrol & other stuff. We don't all have to spend all day chopping wood, etc. I don't like wearing hair shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm glad some of you have realised that my definition of 'free' is not the same as the scientific notion of being 'free energy'. I do of course grasp the concept of energy in versus energy out (in a scientific way). I was of course refering to the monetary cost, and I did qualify my assertion, saying 'excluding installation costs', which obviously isn't exactly insignificant. The three systems I mentioned should provide more than enough power all year round. Any excess could be used to charge batteries...Or sell back to the grid. I can't see maintenance costs being a huge factor. Even nuclear power stations need a lot of maintenance. My assertion is that the 'free' energy produced, would far outweigh the cost of buying power from our greedy electricity generating company's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Have you done the sums, Pete? How do your results compare with the calculations of those who do the sums for a living? If there is a discrepancy, how do you explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Have you done the sums, Pete? How do your results compare with the calculations of those who do the sums for a living? If there is a discrepancy, how do you explain it? No I havn't done sums. It's just logical to me, that if you're producing your own electricity at no billing cost. It has to be better (and more cost effective) than buying it from an electricity provider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 No I havn't done sums. It's just logical to me, that if you're producing your own electricity at no billing cost. It has to be better (and more cost effective) than buying it from an electricity provider. You can't ignore the installation cost when calculating this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 You can't ignore the installation cost when calculating this though. Yes I appreciate that. I know it's not inconsiderable. What if you purchased a house with those facilities already installed? As a side issue, I always wonder why people object to having wind farms in their vicinity? I'd have one in my back yard and wouldn't think twice about it! Bizarrely it always seems to be the 'greens' that object to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Presumably the installation will be reflected in the cost of the house. But I doubt anyone would turn down electricity that they don't pay for. You'd have one in your back yard? Have you seen the size of them? They make noise, and thing that people object to most is the flickering shadow they create when the sun is shining through the blades. It's very disturbing apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Presumably the installation will be reflected in the cost of the house. But I doubt anyone would turn down electricity that they don't pay for. You'd have one in your back yard? Have you seen the size of them? They make noise, and thing that people object to most is the flickering shadow they create when the sun is shining through the blades. It's very disturbing apparently. Well I didn't mean a full size one that you see on hilltops in the country. Yes I know they make noise. SO do airports and roads, and a whole host of other things. Eventually you learn to switch off from these things. I can't see why the flickering from the blades would be a problem. Most of the ones I've seen are pretty much miles from the nearest houses. Even if you lived within spitting distance from one (at the risk of being corrected by scientists), I would proffer that light passing across the vanes from sunlight, might last perhaps a quarter of an hour per day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.