Wind turbines – love 'em or hate 'em?

A 60W bulb uses 60W all the time it’s on. You can leave it on for a year if you like, it’s a 60W bulb. Leave it on or one hour it’ll use 60Wh.

LOL. The lamp will use 60W per hour. In 2 hours, it’ll use 120Wh.

require massive infrastructure installations.

Unlike conventional power stations that need no cables, roads or….erm….I got that wrong didn’t I?

Massive compared to what? Massive infrastructure implies a new airport or something else properly big. Not a wind farm.

This is mental.

It IS using 60W at any given instant because power is an instantaneous value.

It will using 60 JOULES in a second

IF you left it on for an hour it’d use 2.16×10^5 JOULES or 60Wh.

1Wh = 3600J

Honestly mate, this is not some crackpot theory, it’s extremely basic Physics.

no backhander – in two hours it will use 120w not 120wh

Good googling.

That threw me for a minute, because your original reply read “CBA” before you went back and pounded out a response. Presumably you realised that you could BA once you’d, ironically, googled what you were talking about. It’s a shame, therefore, that you’re still talking complete gibberish.

Your example shows that the plant has increased by 10kW per 1 hour = 10kWh.

No. It’s increased production by 10KW per 1 hour = 10kW/h. I know it’s confusing because they look very similar, don’t they.

Grrr

this is a windmill

This is not

Its an effin wind turbine!!!!!!

no backhander – in two hours it will use 120w not 120wh

Don’t do that, you’ll make Molgrips go a funny colour.

Good grief – herein lieth the anthwer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour

no backhander – in two hours it will use 120w not 120wh

Are you trolling?!

…and this is a windpump.

Binners, we could meet in Rammy, do The Rake first and end the ride at a chippy!

Me and Mr Starship will be in touch with a finely honed plan.

Are you trolling?!

Ever read the instructions on a firework?

Actually, thinking about it he’s not trolling, he’s fishing.

For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h

What wiki said:

For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h)

What you said:

The lamp will use 60W per hour

Different.

Anyway, aren’t we missing the point?!? Wind turbines are rubbish because of something some guy said down the pub, and a bunch of dubious cherry-picked reports. Instead we should be using other forms of renewable energy that haven’t got past development instead.

One of the turbines on Scout Moor has been on fire recently or so I have been told. Must have a look before they polish it up.

there’s no difference
the energy used is 100 watt hours
The lamp will use 60W per hour
**** hell maybe I’m not great at putting my point into written form, you know what I meant. We’re talking about energy which we can use. I could jump all over your posts if I had to and your lack of understanding of ENERGY.
Well done for the tag BTW. very constructive.

I had to and your lack of understanding of ENERGY

This is insane.

I understand it perfectly well. I’ve got a masters degree in Physics, but I don’t need it for this since it’s A level stuff.

60W = 60J/s

60W per hour = 60J/s/h which is nonsense in this context.

60Wh = 216,000J

The reason I made my original post is that it was NOT exactly clear what you meant. I thought I understood though so that’s what I posted.

12kWh in a day is a looong way from a 12kW supply. By a factor of 24 in fact.

Wh is entirely different to W/h

The slash is important!

Molgrips is 100% right on this one. There is no debate, really.

It is absolutely basic SI unit derivation. A Level (maybe even GCSE) Physics stuff.

I’ve always thought it would be so much easier if the industry used Joules instead of kWh.

I think a lot of this argument is down to the use of English. I think people interpret the statement ‘the bulb uses 60W’ in different ways. It would be better to say ‘the bulb is rated at 60W’ or ‘the bulb uses energy at a rate of 60W’. Either way the bulb will use 2Wh or 216kJ of energy in one hour.

By the way I totally agree with Kit’s comment on this.

W/h – the rate of change of energy consumption? 😯

Ok so my units weren’t up to scratch admittedly.
The point still stands that 2 off 30m WTs produce a maximum 12kWh per day or 0.5kW. They have only done this a few days this year and the energy produced is often nothing.

Anyway, aren’t we missing the point?!? Wind turbines are rubbish because of something some guy said down the pub, and a bunch of dubious cherry-picked reports. Instead we should be using other forms of renewable energy that haven’t got past development instead.

Attitudes like this, who believe whatever the WT manufacturers and govt tells them need to be informed of the real limitations and failures of wind technology which are currently being found out worldwide although not widely reported due to embarrasment.

Harry. We could start on the Rake, do a big loop. (the last descent down to Rammy is great fun) then finish with the delights of this place at the bottom:

http://www.grantarmshotelramsbottom.co.uk/menu.php

where we can sit outside and take in the rather nice view of the turbines we’ll have just ridden round. Result!

Fish and Chips and a pint sir? 😀

I’ve always thought it would be so much easier if the industry used Joules instead of kWh.

100% agree.

I suppose they invented kWh for those who don’t know that a 1W = 1J/s

OT I like them and think they are part of the solution. Storage is an issue though – can we use them to pump water up hill then we have it stored for hydro use?
IME – I have lived off mains the net so to speak. Wind is highly unpredictable and when it is really windy you can generate three months worth of power in about 6 hours of strong wind…no method for storing this much though. Other days/ weeks it will do nothing. I realise being built on hills/windy sites stops this but its inability to respond to demand makes it unsuitable as a sole power source. Surely tidal ,as it is always on, is better?
Solar was great for 6 mths o fth year – those sunny ones anyway

Spain has proven the worth of renewables.

backhander I think for your own sake you need to sit down, have a cup of tea and read up on the facts and make sure you understand them before you dig a deeper hole, have a look at what you are actually linking to and bear in mind anti-wind sites have some truly hilarious ‘facts’ about wind turbines. My current favourite I came across the other day is that wind turbines actually work in reverse and are powered from the grid to spin to make the industry look better!

I’m a fan of well placed wind farms, but those with low capacity factors or too close to sensitive receptors aren’t a good idea. Offshore wind is fantastic and will be the way of the future – clamouring over onshore sites that have already been turned down is a sign that things will change. Micro renewables are great too – I’d love to have a house powered by things like solar, heated by the ground, a wee wind turbine, a little run of river hydro, would be lovely.

I suppose they invented kWh for those who don’t know that a 1W = 1J/s

Yeah or just to keep the numbers smaller 🙂

Surely tidal ,as it is always on

Well it’s not really always on is it? It’s always going to generate a huge amount in a 6hr period or whatever it is, but it’s only for two 6hr periods a day, and those periods don’t always line up with demand.

I’m a fan of well placed wind farms

You don’t say.

Hang on a minute. Brusquely asserting his opposition to wind farms in a blunt manner? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder……

Backhander. You are Sir Bernard Ingham and I claim my £5 😉

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/apr/25/energy.greenpolitics

Spain has proven the worth of renewables.

Holland Disagree[/url]

the real limitations and failures of wind technology which are currently being found out worldwide although not widely reported due to embarrasment.

Please share your sources.

Wind turbines are a lot like 29ers. They weren’t great when they came out, but once people understood them, tweaked their design and worked out where to put them for best effect, they became mainstream and just part of the overall scenery. Some turbines were not well sited. They are getting better at this and they do generate electricity from something that isn’t finite, so that = good.

The information is out there.
I don’t disagree with the theory, energy with no pollution is good; it’s the practice and the fact that they deliver such a miniscule amount of energy, which is criminally (IME) overestimated by manufacturers. I don’t disagree with them on looks/location either but I am aware that off shore wind farms are very expensive and difficult to maintain.

they proper shit me up when I was riding through them and they start to turn into the wind

they is massive and its weird noise when you don’t know exactly whats making it

Binners et all – I might be interested in you ride, would you let me know if its ok to pop along with you? ta – email in profile

Chips and a pint sir?

Now you’re talking. I might swing by, depending when (and if you don’t mind).

The information is out there.

Where, Mulder?

One of the things that is often forgot about when discussing renewable energy is that it is usually quoted as offsetting a proportion of the UKs electricity consumption. However this is only a small part of the total energy that we use (~12%). To put that in perspective, the UKs wind turbines are at this moment contributing 0.036% of our total energy consumption!

The problem we have is that we have built a society on high density fuels (petrol, coal, uranium etc.) and we are now trying to replace them with much lower density fuels (hydrogen, wind etc.). That means much more infrastruture and much higher energy costs, something that we are not very good at accepting. Building a few wind turbines in scotland is going to have a tiny effect on our total energy usage, it would be far better to spend that money getting people to reduce their consumption, especially in areas such as transport.

“Minisule amount of energy”, come now backhander, 13GW peak for Spain is hardly miniscule. France’s latest EPR nuclear reactor is given for 1.6GW in comparison. Even on an averagely windy day Spain’s wind turbines are worth several nuclear plants.

I would argue that the easisest way to reduce energy consumption is to cut domestic, industrial, commercial and pulic sector energy use. The average British home is an energy efficiency disaster.

That, in addition to renewables/nuclear.

You know, if they made turbines that ran off hot air, we could solve the country’s energy problems by plumbing one into this forum.

(-:

The information is out there.

Where? You claim it is buried so help me find it instead of waving your arm at the internet.

it’s the practice and the fact that they deliver such a miniscule amount of energy, which is criminally (IME) overestimated by manufacturers

Miniscule compared to what? They take energy from a free source, so all of it is good on one level. All manufacturers over-egg their product – solar PV is particularly bad for that as well.

If you are so rabidly anti-turbine, what is your alternative?