Wind Turbines
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
I used to think Nuclear power was the future, but I am not so sure, my main problem is the radioactive waste, even with the half life its still toxic thousands of years later.
What reasons,can we give future generations for leaving a toxic legacy.
What reasons,can we give future generations for leaving a toxic legacy.
That there is no alternative source which can yield sufficient energy to power the hospitals in which they were, or will be borne. Additionally, the industry, food supply and infrastructure which enabled their parents to benefit from an economy which funded their upbringing, sustenance, shelter, education and continued health care all required enormous amounts of energy that could not be supplied by windmills or other trendy sources.
It's not ideal burying toxic waste which will remain deadly for thousands of years, but there isn't an alternative. If future generations want to bleat about the toxic legacy, remind them of the above.
Last edited:
Don't you think we might be dabbling in dangerous waters? They have looked at harnessing Gulf stream with turbines etc. They worked out that harvesting one thousandth of its power would supply 35% of Florida's needs. Then build in a few more states dropping turbines down there, increased demand etc etc and all of a sudden the Gulf Stream is reduced. Does that then become a spiral down hill switching off the stream.
Extracting energy from any finite supply is bound to have consequences. Many argue if present growth in wind turbine use is maintained we will see changes in weather patterns. I agree with Tillson.
Could nuclear waste energy be returned to where it came from? The sun?
Same applies though since the resistance exists at the entrance to the venturi so the flow will still take the least line of resistance around the outside. As you say Strangford narrows was ideal, but the open sea far from being so.
Wind turbines also have a potential bypassing problem but that's answered by huge blade spans, not practical in the sea.
.
I also agree with Tillson, nuclear is the only sensible way forward and I'm glad we are going that way now.
As for returning the energy to the sun, in a sense we can, meaning our own sun, the burning core of the earth. Tectonic plate shift constantly takes plate surfaces back down into the molten magma. There's no reason why we cannot devise a way of depositing nuclear waste on the recessive plate before the shift junction in the open ocean so that it gets taken down for it to be reprocessed in the way it was first created.
Not yet though. All that nuclear waste is a valuable fuel for fast breeder reactors to take the place of conventional nuclear when easily accessible uranium 238 runs low. Then the final waste from them can go into the earth's core.
.
A bigger problem with wind turbines is the tower and its proximity to blades. It creates a turbulent and slight high pressure at its front. The blade encounters upto a 10% change in AoA, and turbulence. This sets up a pulse and noise. Blades have to be built stronger and with a fatter leading edge to cope better with varying AoA. This reduces efficiency. If you stand by a turbine on a windy day you can hear the pulse, if you sail down wind of a turbine you can actually feel vibration in sail. (A farm has ruined a sailing venue I used to frequent. All the data suggested it would not and to be fair the strength is surprisingly little effected but the wind is certainly more fluky (ie changing direction) and contains the "pulse".It's quite disconcerting to windsurf in. There also seems to be a band of greatest effect. Close up to the turbines is OK. (, ie on the beach)Over 2 miles or so out and wind has settled. Unfortunately the impact zone is exactly where we sail. Strangely, probably because of geography, some venues seem much more affected than others. (Turbines have been sprouting at nearly all top with windsurfing sites, for obvious reasons, probably one of reasons I think they are big white elephants)
Last edited:
The nuclear industry as we know it was designed in order to produce high-quality fissionable material for weapons. Had the opportunity been taken to use thorium instead, a much more sustainable resource would have been available. There are thorium reactors now, and extraction of thorium from seawater does provide a potential low impact resource.
I see no alternative for the UK but to stay with a nuclear energy option, due to the large population density, however other countries , including Ireland are blessed with other options.... Particularly wind. , Spain and north Africa with Solar .
There is however an error implicit in a few of the recent postings. Nuclear materials are not and never were created in the earth's core. What has kept our planet warm has been the radioactive decay of that material which was deposited when the earth was formed. When Lord Kelvin made his erroneous calculation on the age of the earth, using the temperature calculation, and the known physics at the time, he was of course unaware of the existence of energy release by decay.
Thank you Danidl, it's pleasure to read such truth and good sense about nuclear power in this age when there is so much misinformation about it.
Regarding the creation matter, you may have misunderstood what I posted about returning nuclear waste to the earth's core for recycling since I didn't clarify that. That did not mean recycling to usable uranium 238 of course, not possible, it merely meant recycling to other non-radioactive fundamental constituents. A convenient way to dispose of the waste rather than having any other gain.
.