autogyro wrote:Strange Ciro, I have a vertical shaft wind turbine on the roof of my workshop.
It takes up no extra land space and produces sufficient energy to run the lights and heating for most of the year.
Hmm, now if every building had one and decent insulation, I wonder how that would affect your figures?
Plenty of wind for a billion turbines and no need for any land space whatsoever.
Hmmm, someones wrong here and I think I know who.
Well, I am building a wind mechanical pump, a small reservoir and (maybe) a small water turbine generator.
The point I made about land use for industrial wind energy, I think, proves that
is no big deal in terms of land use, as 3% seems not so much, specially considering what WB says about coastal use. How this became an argument against wind energy beats me.
I agree with you in this, autogyro: if every house were self sufficient, perhaps partially as you have done, this would be a different world.
Now,
the point of
the thread, for several pages has been
to argument about
nuclear energy pros and cons. Lately, it has become an exercise on
the cost of wind energy. With all due respect, I gave
the figures about
the cost of wind energy that I found in
the British press, they are not "my figures". They do not seem
to give wind energy an economic edge over
nuclear power and
the tone of
the articles where I found them seems
to point
to growing resistance
to wind farms.
As for
the comparisons between
the source of energy of our countries, WB, perhaps I shouldn't have
erased most of
the long post I wrote about how this was
the result of a deliberate policy development of use of energy in which I participated indirectly. When I wrote it, last night, I gave more figures, specially about carbon use and
the Happy Planet Index.
When I re-read it this morning, it seemed ridiculously long, so I erased most of it and I just left
the end results of 10 years of work (and a big effort on my side
to promote
the renewable energy that, after a serious study, seemed
the optimal for our country). Wind wasn't optimal, for many reasons, including
the difficulty
to access a lot of territory.
It included a rant about how Europe policy makers, down here, seemed blind. I guess this rant (and I ridiculous video I also erased) made Giblet
to bump this thread into
the no-man's land of
the Off Topic forum. Sorry.
I can also say that in Latin America
nuclear weapons are forbidden by treaty since
the 60's.
Nuclear power isn't. Perhaps this explain
the deep roots of
the distress I read
is happening in Germany after a plant accident in Japan.
However, I also erased
the prediction I made about Europe becaming energy dependent of Russian gas fields if Europe discard
nuclear wholly. I don't think
nuclear rejection
is feasible, specially in Germany and France, that depend so much on
nuclear power (as few else), because of this problem. I think that wind
is not going
to replace it.
The 20% figures proposed using wind and
solar seem, without major technological advance, a game with numbers that perhaps
is not taking in account
the status of European economy and
the disadvantage it will get from using a power that costs double as gas.
Richard, I made
the change in title, from
BMW city to BMW city AND is nuclear the way to go, many months ago, when this thread was three or four pages long and I was a mod. Back then,
the BMW thing was still an important part of
the thread. Now it isn't.
About Germany having no other sources of hydropower left, well, sorry for
the Germans. Good luck in their quest for clean energy.
And, hey, autogyro, glad
to "see" you again.
