Green light for giant turbines at beauty spot (From Daily Echo)

Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

I'm not even convinced that atomic power is a hard choice. People may point to Chernobyl in horror, claiming it proves nuclear power to be unsafe, but it's still the only catastrophe in such a station (Three Mile Island was well-contained) and the technology has moved on considerably since 1986. It's a sane, sensible answer if you ask me.

I just returned from France having not visited for over a decade and was amazed by the sheer number of turbines in the countryside and struck by their awesome beauty. They certainly added perspective to the view which would otherwise would have consisted of flat fields. They looked particularly dramatic on the horizon during a thunderstorm.
I don't suppose everyone would agree, but I'm sure when the old Bursledon windmill was first erected people thought it hideous!
I do hope this exciting project goes ahead and the opinions of a few dozen nimbys wont stand in the way of our national energy security.

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power.
there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

Well, the thing about turbines is, they have a tendency to revolve. So which bit is the top, and which bit is the bottom?

I know you're referring to the supporting column, btw. I'm just making the point that there's no real disguising them.

I don't see why we can't do something to make them more attractive, though. The old classic "mouse on the stair" windmills Don Quixote declared war on, they were built for function over form, but still managed to be visually appealing.

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power.
there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

You got sources for those figures, Southy? Sounds interesting, and the sort of thing we need to look at, rather than just stating "we can harness the tide for power" and leaving it at that.

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power.
there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

Yes you are right - All that hot air could be used to generate electricity!
Either that or you intend to burn a few Heretics maybe.

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power.
there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

You got sources for those figures, Southy? Sounds interesting, and the sort of thing we need to look at, rather than just stating "we can harness the tide for power" and leaving it at that.

look at a tide book that will help you to under stand. but basic for you, neap tides where the tide range could be less than 3 foot range and taken a time of 6 hours to rise 3 foot and another 6 hours to fall 3 foot.
bristol uni ran the test on the severn for 2 years. it work when there was spring tides and never work for neap tides and in between it was very iffy.
a tide will slow right down just before it tops outs and on the run of its starts of slow before it speed up and the same thing happens when the tide bottoms out.
on the river test the tide is not at full speed on the falling tide till 90 mins after high tide, but thats to be expected with southampton having the shallowest tide range in the UK.

We live in a world of Nimbys - we know that there is an issue with fuel etc but are too scared to accept the changes that we need to make to have renewable energy in the future. I'm sure my children would rather we had these things dotted around the landscape rather than a future with no credible power supplies.

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote: Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide. If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power. there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

You got sources for those figures, Southy? Sounds interesting, and the sort of thing we need to look at, rather than just stating "we can harness the tide for power" and leaving it at that.

look at a tide book that will help you to under stand. but basic for you, neap tides where the tide range could be less than 3 foot range and taken a time of 6 hours to rise 3 foot and another 6 hours to fall 3 foot. bristol uni ran the test on the severn for 2 years. it work when there was spring tides and never work for neap tides and in between it was very iffy. a tide will slow right down just before it tops outs and on the run of its starts of slow before it speed up and the same thing happens when the tide bottoms out. on the river test the tide is not at full speed on the falling tide till 90 mins after high tide, but thats to be expected with southampton having the shallowest tide range in the UK.

What about all the work that is being done in the Shetland Islands, they seem to be making some headway with some innovating new designs for tidal and wave power.

StEmmosfire wrote:

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote: Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide. If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power. there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

You got sources for those figures, Southy? Sounds interesting, and the sort of thing we need to look at, rather than just stating "we can harness the tide for power" and leaving it at that.

look at a tide book that will help you to under stand. but basic for you, neap tides where the tide range could be less than 3 foot range and taken a time of 6 hours to rise 3 foot and another 6 hours to fall 3 foot. bristol uni ran the test on the severn for 2 years. it work when there was spring tides and never work for neap tides and in between it was very iffy. a tide will slow right down just before it tops outs and on the run of its starts of slow before it speed up and the same thing happens when the tide bottoms out. on the river test the tide is not at full speed on the falling tide till 90 mins after high tide, but thats to be expected with southampton having the shallowest tide range in the UK.

What about all the work that is being done in the Shetland Islands, they seem to be making some headway with some innovating new designs for tidal and wave power.

they are not using the tide, they are using the waves. shetland gets the full effect of the atlantic swell.

UGLY, UGLY, UGLY

Build more nuclear power stations.

southy wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

Roy S wrote: Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide. If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

we dont have that tide range over a 14 day period, and that has been proven tidal power is a waste of time in the uk. on the uk main land the severn estuary has the biggest tidal range and test there have proven it will not produce enough power to put on the grid for 5 to 8 days out of 14 days, so you be only able to produce power to go on the grid between 6 and 9 days in every 14 days and you will still lose 4 hours or more on each of those days when it can produce enough power though stand of on the tides. tidal power could work on the other side of the channel around the channel isles where the range is a lot greater its double at lest what you get over this side, but there will still be times when you can not produce power. there is a system that can be used how ever, but its going to be keep quiet till the TUSC launch its manifest for the next general election. and it will upset some very rich and powerful people because it going to effect there pockets in a very big way. and if or when the TUSC get into power in main government it will become a reality.

You got sources for those figures, Southy? Sounds interesting, and the sort of thing we need to look at, rather than just stating "we can harness the tide for power" and leaving it at that.

look at a tide book that will help you to under stand. but basic for you, neap tides where the tide range could be less than 3 foot range and taken a time of 6 hours to rise 3 foot and another 6 hours to fall 3 foot. bristol uni ran the test on the severn for 2 years. it work when there was spring tides and never work for neap tides and in between it was very iffy. a tide will slow right down just before it tops outs and on the run of its starts of slow before it speed up and the same thing happens when the tide bottoms out. on the river test the tide is not at full speed on the falling tide till 90 mins after high tide, but thats to be expected with southampton having the shallowest tide range in the UK.

What about all the work that is being done in the Shetland Islands, they seem to be making some headway with some innovating new designs for tidal and wave power.

they are not using the tide, they are using the waves. shetland gets the full effect of the atlantic swell.

They actually have a device that is being used for tidal power, it is placed in an area of high current which turns a generator and when the tide turns it then begins the process again spinning the other way. It is idle between currents. Then they have a product called a snake which uses wave energy, there are loads of new devices that they are trialing, and it is creating a load of new jobs too.

well its a good thing to carry out trials the knowledge is needed weather if it works ok or not. its not a tidal power has such, what they are doing is using the north sea current stream that breaks of the gulf stream current and flows into the north sea, whitch is another idea, they could try that on the races just of portland.

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

I would suggest that the reasons for the 'colour' are concerned with the engineering of the structures.
A Dark body absorbs and emits radiation better than a light body.
The sun's radiation is converted to heat.
The heat will cause thermal expansion on the heated side distorting the tower, or even the blades, which in turn will affect the dynamic performance.
So the lighter the colour the less thermal expansion, and differential expansion.
.
The towers are generally metal, which corrodes. Corrosion is more visible and can then be treated, on a lighter colour.
The blades are made of Glass reinforced plastic. Adding pigments to GRP increases the cost and complexity of manufacture and in some cases can increase the likelihood of structural failure or even osmosis. If this occurred the whole turbine would run out of balance, which could obviously be dangerous.

Victorian Principles wrote:

Roy S wrote:
Why do we seem to stuck in the groove of wind power generation, which on our small overcrowded island uses available space uneconomically. We have the proven alternative of Tidal Power, and many estuaries that have sufficient tidal range to efficiently generate power on both the falling and rising tide.

If the people want electrical energy without windmills dotted all over the countryside, then hard choices will have to be made e.g. atomic power etc

I'm not even convinced that atomic power is a hard choice. People may point to Chernobyl in horror, claiming it proves nuclear power to be unsafe, but it's still the only catastrophe in such a station (Three Mile Island was well-contained) and the technology has moved on considerably since 1986. It's a sane, sensible answer if you ask me.

I agree - it is not a hard choice. People play with power supply as though it is a hobby but you cannot build a power supply solution that delivers 99.9% of the time or 99.9% of the demand. It doesn't work and people die. We seem to be in the grip of politicians and ill informed amateurs who think their pet hobby solution provides the answers. I have explained to Southy previously that his idea of micro generation from streams cannot generate even a tiny fraction of the capacity required but he doesn't understand either the concept or the maths, and as for his fears about nuclear decommissioning, if the next generation of reactors are sited where the current magnox stations are being decommissioned then that is two problems overcome for the price of one. Transmission of tiny trickles of low voltage windor tidal power over long distances (eg from Shetland or any offshore island) is vastly inefficient given the cost of infrastructure required (subsidised by conventional power generation of course). FInally the reason wind turbines should be bright is because they are bird killers. remember that no animal or human has ever been harmed by domestic nuclear power generation in this country -you cannot even say that Chernobyl killed a single british animal - it was humans that insisted on slaughtering thousands of sheep. And the death toll from wind farms is already thousands of birds and rising daily. So which form of generation should we worry about?

I wonder whether the old windmills that were built to grind the corn had as many protests when they were built.

Let's face it, they are a damned sight noisier than the modern ones, and just as conspicuous on the skyline.

With time, they have become a feature and become part of, what is considered to be, an area of natural beauty.

If it is going to give me cheaper electricity, with no danger of some pratt pulling the wrong switch or pressing the wrong button that would cause atomic radiation, then I am all for it, and the Winchester area is an ideal site. Let's face it, they have not listened to local complaints when they have OKed some unwelcome planning applications.

andy you still dont under stand flow and fall are two different ways to be able to produce power. the very first flax mill factories base there power on flow and not fall. like taking a bend in a river and making short cut in the river. even lo the major part of the water flow stilled carried on round the bend in the river, the short cut still produce enough power to turn those very heavy wooden beams and run 100 looms plus spinners and you could measure the fall in inches and not feet.
you can have a 1000 foot fall but if the volume is not there it will not work, or you can have a few inches of fall with volume and find it will work.

Militant Ford Worker wrote:
I just returned from France having not visited for over a decade and was amazed by the sheer number of turbines in the countryside and struck by their awesome beauty. They certainly added perspective to the view which would otherwise would have consisted of flat fields. They looked particularly dramatic on the horizon during a thunderstorm. I don't suppose everyone would agree, but I'm sure when the old Bursledon windmill was first erected people thought it hideous! I do hope this exciting project goes ahead and the opinions of a few dozen nimbys wont stand in the way of our national energy security.

I agree. It is not until you stand alongside the turbines that you appreciate the size of them. Awesome examples can be found on the A30 between north and south Cornwall.

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

Spent a week in Cornwall this summer and was amazed at the beauty of these wind turbines.

Just watching the blades spin in little wind was a fantastic sight, it gives something dynamic to the countryside.

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

he did say it, when ask by a journalist what colours can your customers can have. "a customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black" was the reply. henry ford was full of quotes

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

he did say it, when ask by a journalist what colours can your customers can have. "a customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black" was the reply. henry ford was full of quotes

You are both wrong.
He WROTE IT in his autobiography.

Smiley69 wrote:
We live in a world of Nimbys - we know that there is an issue with fuel etc but are too scared to accept the changes that we need to make to have renewable energy in the future. I'm sure my children would rather we had these things dotted around the landscape rather than a future with no credible power supplies.

If Mr. Chicken has his way, we won't be able to move for the ugly contraptions. Nuclear is the only sensible answer, and if successive governments had not been too scared to grasp that particular nettle, they'd be well on their way to completion by now.

In this day and age there must be technolgy available to go back to using fossil fuels of which this country has an abundance, those professors out there could surely come up with an efficient way to burn coal without resorting to destroying the atmosphere?

Nutstrangler wrote:

Smiley69 wrote:
We live in a world of Nimbys - we know that there is an issue with fuel etc but are too scared to accept the changes that we need to make to have renewable energy in the future. I'm sure my children would rather we had these things dotted around the landscape rather than a future with no credible power supplies.

If Mr. Chicken has his way, we won't be able to move for the ugly contraptions. Nuclear is the only sensible answer, and if successive governments had not been too scared to grasp that particular nettle, they'd be well on their way to completion by now.

and after 25 when they decommission it your left with a building and gear that can not be used. then you build another one and after 25 years that one is decommissioned and so on, and its space this island can ill-afford to lose.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In this day and age there must be technolgy available to go back to using fossil fuels of which this country has an abundance, those professors out there could surely come up with an efficient way to burn coal without resorting to destroying the atmosphere?

there has been for 35 years by fitting a recyclable scrubber unit. best way is to burn coke than coal. you get a hotter burn and longer lasting heat.

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

he did say it, when ask by a journalist what colours can your customers can have. "a customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black" was the reply. henry ford was full of quotes

On the contrary, Southy, not only did he not say that, initially, he did not even offer his cars in black at all.

southy wrote:
andy you still dont under stand flow and fall are two different ways to be able to produce power. the very first flax mill factories base there power on flow and not fall. like taking a bend in a river and making short cut in the river. even lo the major part of the water flow stilled carried on round the bend in the river, the short cut still produce enough power to turn those very heavy wooden beams and run 100 looms plus spinners and you could measure the fall in inches and not feet.
you can have a 1000 foot fall but if the volume is not there it will not work, or you can have a few inches of fall with volume and find it will work.

FFS Southy I did Physics for 7 years after A levels - The stuff you are attempting and failing to understand is taught at GCSE! Last time you aired this nonsense I even went through Newton's laws and showed you the sums using the river Itchen as an example. You mention fall and flow but when I used them to show how much electricity you can usefully generate from a given quantity you didn't get it. You don't have the first inkling of what you are talking about - you are just quoting from somewhere else. I don't mind that but what I object to is your dumb assumption that if you don't understand something nobody else does either. I'll explain it to you another way - Do you understand electricity? ok first off you tell me the electrical characteristics that equate to flow and fall and then we'll do the sums yet again using electrical formulae. If nothing else it will prove to a new audience how little you actually know and how much less than that you understand.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

he did say it, when ask by a journalist what colours can your customers can have. "a customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black" was the reply. henry ford was full of quotes

You are both wrong.
He WROTE IT in his autobiography.

How does the fact that he never said it, make me wrong about saying he never said it??

Anyways, regardless, the very fact that it was quite clearly intended as a media-friendly soundbite nullifies Southy's use of it as an argument about why turbines can only be white.

hulla baloo wrote:
UGLY, UGLY, UGLY Build more nuclear power stations.

These Turbines are a bloody eyesore and have no place in this beautiful country of ours.
They are about as efficient as a public sector worker and produce energy about as often as they do!
Nuclear power is the only viable option for ensuring our future energy needs

I really don't get people who complain about these, makes most landscapes more interesting than plain old fields! Think some people if they had their way would have us living in caves still

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

southy wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I'm not being funny here but is there any reason why these turbines have to be white?? Why can't they be blended in to the background more? I'm not saying i'm for them in the first place but i'd like to look at that proposition first before discounting the idea.

I'm sure an artist could blend in suitable colours from dark at the bottom to blue's at the top!

has henry ford once said, you can have it in any colour has you like as long it black, in this case white.

Victorian Principles
atomic power is not the answer at the moment, when a nuclear power station is decommission the ground it stands on is unusable the equipment and gear is unrecyclable sort those problems out then maybe nuclear power might be the answer.

Urban myth, Southy. Ford never said that!

he did say it, when ask by a journalist what colours can your customers can have. "a customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black" was the reply. henry ford was full of quotes

You are both wrong.
He WROTE IT in his autobiography.

How does the fact that he never said it, make me wrong about saying he never said it??

Anyways, regardless, the very fact that it was quite clearly intended as a media-friendly soundbite nullifies Southy's use of it as an argument about why turbines can only be white.

Err?
Where have I said you are wrong?
My post was timed at 5:43
Your first post at 8:37

shabbycaddy wrote:
I really don't get people who complain about these, makes most landscapes more interesting than plain old fields! Think some people if they had their way would have us living in caves still

In that case we will build one in your back garden and see how you like it.
actually my point is that not only are they ugly blots on the landscape they are useless at providing a solution to our energy needs.
No I would not like you to live in caves but there are far reaching consequences of using these eyesores in the countryside.

The real problem we face with nuclear power which often seems to be overlooked, is not the fear of accidents like Chernobyl, but the fact that we do not have a solution for the disposal of toxic waste - dumping it in a devloping country is just not the answer.

Personally, I believe we need to harness power in as many and varied ways as we safely can. Spread the risk, maximise the potential.

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In this day and age there must be technolgy available to go back to using fossil fuels of which this country has an abundance, those professors out there could surely come up with an efficient way to burn coal without resorting to destroying the atmosphere?

there has been for 35 years by fitting a recyclable scrubber unit. best way is to burn coke than coal. you get a hotter burn and longer lasting heat.

Two issues there Southy that you haven't addressed. Firstly you have to cook the coal somewhere to get coke. Doing it away from the power station doesn't solve the problem, just relocates it. Secondly, scrubbers (or flue gas desulphurisation such as the unit fitted at Drax which you are referring to) not only inhibits the efficiency of the boilers, but requires the trasport of large amounts of limestone to the station and large amounts of gypsum away from it. The energy costs of the transport need to be paid for and also need to be substracted from the overall loss of efficiency. Given a level playing field nuclear power using modern reactors remains the cleanest, safest cheapest most efficient and most reliable option we have for power generation.

Very sensible post Andy, Nuclear is the way to go and as they take a long time to build the UK is way behind other countries such as France.

This renewable/nuclear debate is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.
Electricity generation represents only a small percentage of the UK’s (and the world’s) use of fossil fuels.
The problems our species face are: -
1) an ever increasing world population.
2) all with ever increasing material expectations.
3) on a finite planet with finite resources.
This has occurred because of our ever increasing use of climate changing fossil fuels and will not be solved by wind farms and/or nuclear power.
Unfortunately, although we are individually by far the cleverest species to have evolved on this planet we are collectively very short-sighted and dumb.
We all know, deep down, that we can’t continue with this crazy economic model of continuous fossil fuel powered population and economic expansion – yet neither individuals nor politicians are prepared to face up to the difficult decisions and changes that are essential for the continued survival of the civilised society we now enjoy.
If we don’t face up to this our grandchildren may well have to go back to living in caves.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In this day and age there must be technolgy available to go back to using fossil fuels of which this country has an abundance, those professors out there could surely come up with an efficient way to burn coal without resorting to destroying the atmosphere?

there has been for 35 years by fitting a recyclable scrubber unit. best way is to burn coke than coal. you get a hotter burn and longer lasting heat.

Two issues there Southy that you haven't addressed. Firstly you have to cook the coal somewhere to get coke. Doing it away from the power station doesn't solve the problem, just relocates it. Secondly, scrubbers (or flue gas desulphurisation such as the unit fitted at Drax which you are referring to) not only inhibits the efficiency of the boilers, but requires the trasport of large amounts of limestone to the station and large amounts of gypsum away from it. The energy costs of the transport need to be paid for and also need to be substracted from the overall loss of efficiency. Given a level playing field nuclear power using modern reactors remains the cleanest, safest cheapest most efficient and most reliable option we have for power generation.

firstly andy you can have a coke cooker next to a power station, and when produce coke there by produces that can be used, like a plastics, oil, and coal gas. coke also makes the best steel going. thats why the quality steel is not has good has it was, very few places now use coke, because no one uses coal gas any more.
scrubber units thats only one kind, there are other types of funnel scrubber units that dont use limestone has a catalyst.
nuclear power is the cheapest while it producing power, it becomes the most expensive when they are shut down for decommission and the wastage of land.
you can not just take into account the cost when a plant is running, you need to take into account, the cost of building, running and when the plant in no longer used, and the only cheap thing about nuclear power is the production of power, its the tax payers that paid for the decommission of sizewell A and are still paying for it now to stand there on land that can not be used or gear to be recycled put this cost on top of nuclear power not so cheap now is it.

and i not come to the cost of transporting the fuel rods for a nuclear stations or the waste of a fuel rod leaves that has to be dispose off.
so if you want a level playing field with the nuclear power stations include all costs and not just take the cost of producing power.

You don't listen do you? I said earlier that if the new generation occupies the same sites as the current Magnox stations the problem is solved - and not only that but politically motivated obsession with capturing every single bequerel is as pointless and wasteful as capturing every single cc of carbon monoxide from a fossil fuel stack. I also forgot to point out to you that you cannot use coke in modern power station boilers because they must use fluid bed combustion technology in order to be used continuously - that is why power station coal is ground to fine powder before being forced into the furnace on a continuous flow. Uncombusted waste is blown as fly ash up the flue to be collected rather than accumulating on the furnace floor. Coke has different uses altogether - it can be used in blast furnaces because they are emptied periodically but is unsuitable for continuiuous use. The trouble is go an google all this stuff but you don't really understand the subject which is why you make such glaring errors, By the way I am still waiting for you to show that you understand the electrical concepts of fall and flow so that I can show you (once again) why this micro dam business is little more than a silly diletante joke. Even the seetup costs of creating millions of tiny ponds mills turbines and catenary would outweigh the cost of a hundred clean nuclear stations. You don't have any background knowledge so stop trying to show off.

Give it up Andy - Dopey is too stupid to realise how stupid he is. He is only trying to impress two or three other half wits on here who think he is some kind of savant.

thats just it andy they don,t, they occupies the ground along side with a safe area gap between them.
the reactor room it self is concreted in and so are the rooms along side it, and are left standing. and that will apply to the new magnox stations. plans are all ready being drawn up for the one in somerset for decommission in 15 years time, it has the same problems has the old type when it comes to decommission and that is a magnox station.
oil, coal and coke burners are different, and with technology now days you do not need to shut down a blast furnace you can keep it running and still clear out the ash. unlike the old type. coke can burn longer and hotter, and when you make coke you get a load of useful by-products, the coal gas it self could be used to produce power. you cant say the same with nuclear power stations only for weapons.
just for every one the mill at nursling is a prime example of fall and flow. it has a drop of 6 to 9 inches. because it used a bend in the river and took a short cut 95% of the water flowed around the bend, but this mill use to drive 3 mill stones at the same time 2 of 4 foot across and 1 of 6 foot across when it was a working mill, and the reason for this to happen was down to gearing, there a lot more fiction to drive those 3 mill stones than there is to drive a megawatt generator. i could blow air though a 2mm pipe and get 2000 psi but if i was to try it though a 2 cm pipe with the same amount of flow i would never be able to do it. if i take a gallon of water and pour it in to a lets say a 3 inch pipe at a 90% angle with a 100 foot drop i get yea amount of power in that water, but i could also pour it down a 1 inch pipe with only a foot drop at a much shallower angle and get the same amount power in that water and how you harvest this power will be different.
the trouble is andy you only been taught one way and to you its the only way.
its like those wind power mills on this item, having those type of blades is one way there is another way of using wind turbines, you dont have to have blades that face into the wind. there is another way of setting up blades that people just dont think of. because of the same problem has you andy they are taught one way only and to them its the only way.

Yes. "I only been taught one way" (sic) but of course you haven't been taught at all so even by your perverse and untrue logic I am ahead. Even the way you phrase that shows you have no idea how knowledge is gained in university. In your mind you may think of term after term of classes and lectures but you are so far off the reality it is pitiful. Your last post is full of factual misunderstanding but I've been down this road with you before. You are not even an autodidact because you learn nothing - you decide in advance who and what you are going to believe and then you do nothing to test your understanding. Your post is just a mishmash of random data from a number of disparate fields and is factually scientifically and mathematically wrong. If you were worth teaching I'd explain things to you but I've tried that before and you don't listen. Even a GCSE science student would understand the principle of the conservation of energy - but to you it's just a chance to go and google it so you can pretend you knew what it was all along. You don't fool anybody and you aren't really worth the effort any more. I remember why I stopped discussing things with you now.

andy i was the same taught one way, but i open my mind up to other ways. you stop discussing with me because you had no argument if you remember, you even agreed on many of my arguments, because i pointed out to you on some very good points.
anf now i give you another point to think about, if we had another major war, it be easy to knock out the power stations where you got so few to run the country, and would bring the country to a stand still, where has if you had loads of smaller power stations it would be harder to knock out all the power. so the country could in effect carry on.

Southy you are wrong about micro power mate. You don't get more power than there is in the water whether it flows straight, fast or slow. It is just height and quantity and nothing else like Andy says. If you work how much you could generate from those two things you will never exceed that. It doesn't matter how many dams you put it you can't fight nature. I don't know what books you've been reading but I don't think you understood them!

I love the way Dopey tries to argue with people who know what they are talking about when he can't even string a sentence together. He's a nasty little nonentity who couldn't even pass his own exams so he tries to rubbish everyone else who passed theirs.

Mental Micky wrote:
Southy you are wrong about micro power mate. You don't get more power than there is in the water whether it flows straight, fast or slow. It is just height and quantity and nothing else like Andy says. If you work how much you could generate from those two things you will never exceed that. It doesn't matter how many dams you put it you can't fight nature. I don't know what books you've been reading but I don't think you understood them!

your are wrong take a look at many of the water mills in this country, there are more mills in the uk that deal with flow than there is fall, mills that deal with fall have the water flow coming over the top of the water wheel, where has mills dealing with flow have the water passing at the bottom of the water wheel. you see the difference now. i could go into the maths of it all very easy but only people like andy could understand, your right on one thing you can never get 100% out of all the power put in.
let me put it another way using a different form of power, the principals are basically are the same.
take 2 combustion engines the same cc size, same amount of fuel, one is a petrol engine the other is diesel engine, the petrol engine can get you from point a to point b (point b is where it runs out of petrol) much faster and will accelerated a lot faster, where has the diesel engine can get you point a to point b and carry on to point c (point c is where it runs out of diesel) and it will do this even carrying its own weight again. put it own weight again on a petrol engine it will lose speed, acceleration and distance it can travel.
this principal most people can under stand, most drivers will any way even lo they do not under stand the maths behind it all, but they know this happens in real life so they don,t need to under stand the maths just that it happens this way. the maths is BHP to THP

oh the maths to BHP and THP go's way over wickham man head, he all ready demonstrated go's far behind his limits in maths, and this is the case of many on here. so keep it so most can under stand. and don,t try to baffle them with science people are not stupid, and people like wickham man try to do this because he thinks he better than every one else, when he not he just equal thats all.

southy wrote:

Mental Micky wrote:
Southy you are wrong about micro power mate. You don't get more power than there is in the water whether it flows straight, fast or slow. It is just height and quantity and nothing else like Andy says. If you work how much you could generate from those two things you will never exceed that. It doesn't matter how many dams you put it you can't fight nature. I don't know what books you've been reading but I don't think you understood them!

your are wrong take a look at many of the water mills in this country, there are more mills in the uk that deal with flow than there is fall, mills that deal with fall have the water flow coming over the top of the water wheel, where has mills dealing with flow have the water passing at the bottom of the water wheel. you see the difference now. i could go into the maths of it all very easy but only people like andy could understand, your right on one thing you can never get 100% out of all the power put in.
let me put it another way using a different form of power, the principals are basically are the same.
take 2 combustion engines the same cc size, same amount of fuel, one is a petrol engine the other is diesel engine, the petrol engine can get you from point a to point b (point b is where it runs out of petrol) much faster and will accelerated a lot faster, where has the diesel engine can get you point a to point b and carry on to point c (point c is where it runs out of diesel) and it will do this even carrying its own weight again. put it own weight again on a petrol engine it will lose speed, acceleration and distance it can travel.
this principal most people can under stand, most drivers will any way even lo they do not under stand the maths behind it all, but they know this happens in real life so they don,t need to under stand the maths just that it happens this way. the maths is BHP to THP

Sorry Southy, you seem to have lost the plot completely now.
That last argument makes no sense whatsoever in relation to the point which you chose to discuss.

What do you mean by "now" X Old Bill?
southy lost the plot years ago.
.
southy has his very own Book of Facts to which no other person has access. It contains all the knowledge currently unknown to the scientific community and the rest of the universe.
.
Really, we are so fortunate that southy condescends to impart all this valuable knowledge on such a regular basis.

X Old Bill wrote:

southy wrote:

Mental Micky wrote:
Southy you are wrong about micro power mate. You don't get more power than there is in the water whether it flows straight, fast or slow. It is just height and quantity and nothing else like Andy says. If you work how much you could generate from those two things you will never exceed that. It doesn't matter how many dams you put it you can't fight nature. I don't know what books you've been reading but I don't think you understood them!

your are wrong take a look at many of the water mills in this country, there are more mills in the uk that deal with flow than there is fall, mills that deal with fall have the water flow coming over the top of the water wheel, where has mills dealing with flow have the water passing at the bottom of the water wheel. you see the difference now. i could go into the maths of it all very easy but only people like andy could understand, your right on one thing you can never get 100% out of all the power put in.
let me put it another way using a different form of power, the principals are basically are the same.
take 2 combustion engines the same cc size, same amount of fuel, one is a petrol engine the other is diesel engine, the petrol engine can get you from point a to point b (point b is where it runs out of petrol) much faster and will accelerated a lot faster, where has the diesel engine can get you point a to point b and carry on to point c (point c is where it runs out of diesel) and it will do this even carrying its own weight again. put it own weight again on a petrol engine it will lose speed, acceleration and distance it can travel.
this principal most people can under stand, most drivers will any way even lo they do not under stand the maths behind it all, but they know this happens in real life so they don,t need to under stand the maths just that it happens this way. the maths is BHP to THP

Sorry Southy, you seem to have lost the plot completely now.
That last argument makes no sense whatsoever in relation to the point which you chose to discuss.

its the maths behind it all, they are basically the same. i pretty sure you under what BHP is and what is THP, a petrol engine maths is work on BHP while diesel engines are work on THP, just look at the difference in the two types of engines tick over speed the petrol engine tick over is faster than diesel engines, the diesel engine can run at a slower speed with out stalling and stopping. the same maths applys to fall and flow of water.
like the first factory mills ( flax ) base there power on THP they did not have a fall apart from a few inches, but what they had was flow. there is a conversion table for BHP to THP.

oh by the way i have to apply the same maths in rigging.

Oh what a lot of armchair experts!

Just one point. Hampshire must be fortunate in having very small turbines if these are 'giant' at 25m. Or is this a misprint and should read 125m?

I don't know what old Dopey is on about either - but I'm sure it's irrelevant to the issue. Anyway numbskull let me see you do some maths - you have a fall of water of 10 metres in a stream of volume 10cu metre per sec and you can have as many mills as you want and you can have lots of little falls or one big fall - it's up to you. Now you tell everyone here how much potential power there is in Kilowatts. And just out of interest, what stretch of local stream or river would you equate that to? Go on dummy - you wanted the spotlight on your maths skills - now let's see you deliver while everyone is watching.

thefairypoet wrote:
Oh what a lot of armchair experts!

Just one point. Hampshire must be fortunate in having very small turbines if these are 'giant' at 25m. Or is this a misprint and should read 125m?

Gosh, someone on topic!
I don't suppose the writer of the article actually bothered to ask, it could be:
25 metre tower.
25metre blade.
25metre rotor disc.
25metres from ground to top of rotor disc.
Who knows?

It does look, from a bit of googling, as if it's the former - Hampshire is very fortunate. The turbines are only 25m (18m tower/13m diam rotor blades). Hardly the 'giants' desecrating much of the UK's countryside but still ineffective, especially when the wind doesn't blow.

Notice how Dopey has quietly slunk away rather than admit he doesn't have the tiniest understanding of how to calculate the potential generating capacity of a microdam. His head is about as dense as the centre of a black hole. Information is sucked in but nothing ever, ever gets out

thefairypoet wrote:
Oh what a lot of armchair experts!

Just one point. Hampshire must be fortunate in having very small turbines if these are 'giant' at 25m. Or is this a misprint and should read 125m?

have you seen the one at dagenham at the ford car plant.

The Wickham Man wrote:
Notice how Dopey has quietly slunk away rather than admit he doesn't have the tiniest understanding of how to calculate the potential generating capacity of a microdam. His head is about as dense as the centre of a black hole. Information is sucked in but nothing ever, ever gets out

i probably knows a lot more than you think. the maths that is applied i need to know its part of a riggers job to know. with mirco damming you dont have the one dam you have many because it deals with flow and fall
you are really brainless let andy do the posting at lest he do under stand the maths thats is applied.
and trying to explain it in simple terms so all can under stand seems to go way over your head to.

The Wickham Man wrote:
Notice how Dopey has quietly slunk away rather than admit he doesn't have the tiniest understanding of how to calculate the potential generating capacity of a microdam. His head is about as dense as the centre of a black hole. Information is sucked in but nothing ever, ever gets out

When he does come back he just evades the issue, of a subject that he brought up in the first place.
It is interesting that he recognises who you are addressing.

.. and despite southy saying "the maths that is applied i need to know its part of a riggers job" you will note he has still NOT provided the answers to The Wickham Man's challenge.
.
Come on southy, what's the answer?

Again the comments are more amusing than the story.... keep it up guys!!