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. No doubt. But it could also be inherited?...Sorry I'm wriggling a little! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? Hmmm.... Could this be the real reason you are asking for advice on cutting down trees in your back garden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hmmm.... Could this be the real reason you are asking for advice on cutting down trees in your back garden? Hahahaha....Possibly!..However, I's not strictly in my back yard...it's a foot or so beyond!.......I like your thinking though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 If - as Davyboy's post suggests - the 'cost to me' is acceptable, then it's worth doing. If there are many 'me's' and the cumulative effect of them all doing it imposes an additional problem, then it may not be worth doing. Wind turbines (and most similar devices) require 'rare earth' elements for the magnets. Rare earths are indeed scarce and the extraction costs are very high. "New, cooler, electricity" is probably the way to go. - Until we can come up with something better. Solar (as in thermal, not PV) sounds good. - There is a project to use parabolic reflectors in Sarah's dessert to make masses of electricity. It would work, too ... but how the hell do you get it to where you want it? The 'plan' envisages a supply to Northern Europe. - The UK would get about 15 gigawatts (if it was lucky.) Better than nothing and every bit helps - but the National Grid is not organised to accept a 15 gigawatt feed at one end, so that would need re-wiring. If you want to shift large amounts of power then HVDC is apparently the way to go - DC convertors are not cheap. If you are going to use copper to carry the current, where are you going to get it from? (There'S not enough on this planet ... do you have plans to mine meteoroids?) You're going to need to use liquid nitrogen to cool the superconductors you will be using. - That'as possible, but making the liquid nit and using it to cool the conductors will use 40% of the power. (Fortunately there are some people in Cambridge who are getting 'pretty close' to room-temperature super-conductors. Close - but they're not there yet.) Unfortunately, the UK is on the back-side of the drag curve. AFAIK, it's generally accepted that the UK should have increased its generating capacity by about 30% at least 15 years ago. It did not do so. Tony Blair (followed by the one-eyed Scottish Trouser snake and his buddy, Milliband Major), committed the UK to massive expenditure to enable the country to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by considerably more than the EU expected - but you are stuck with that and the consumers are going to have to pay hugely increasing energy bills each year as a result. There are only two ways to solve the problem: 1. Everybody will have to cut back energy usage dramatically. or you could 2. Re-elect Labour and let the Millipedes get Blair to tell them how people are supposed to pay these ever-increasing fuel bills without spending more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hahahaha....Possibly!..However, I's not strictly in my back yard...it's a foot or so beyond!.......I like your thinking though! You can't fool us PeteMorris by trying to make us all believe that you don't know what you are talking about! All these posts are merely diversionary tactics to cover up your plans to build your own wind farm on T'Cross! Come on, admit it - You've been rumbled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 28, 2012 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. What you run up against are efficiencies of scale, a big hydro plant is much more efficient at generating than a micro-hydro system. Likewise a one household nuclear power station would be desperately inefficient compared to a 5GW powerstation. Same with running a diesel or petrol generator at home. Distributed power generation does have its advantages, namely that you don't waste any energy providing footwarmers for birds, or stepping the voltage up and down. But the centralised model works better than the distributed model, pretty much whichever way you cut it. But there are lots of people who live off grid yet make use of plentiful electricity. If you micro generate from renewables, you don't have to keep buying in fuel.WIth enough land and a reasonable climate you could grow hemp - that would provide you with carbon neutral fuel, food, building materials, a valuable cash crop and animal fodder - and with suitable crop rotation, you could probably keep that up indefinitely. Stick in a few other generation methods like micro hydro with a suitable water source, a small windmill, and photovoltaics and solar panels, you could live pretty comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Here we go!....Why? It's not about "free" as in costing no money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No doubt. But it could also be inherited?...Sorry I'm wriggling a little! If the value of the property was enogh you'd end up paying IHT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.