Vertical Wind Power Plant

Ruth asks…

Do you know that one nuclear power station?

occupying 430 acres, equals 250.000 acres wind power, or 130.000 acres solar farms.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/renewables/DECC_Infographic_Hinkley-point-C_web.gif

Windmill Farms answers:

Nuclear power is already generally cheaper than wind, solar or tidal.
With the advent of Thorium(LFTR), nuclear will become much cheaper again, as one can eliminate the concrete containment building as LFTR is unpressurised so can’t explode, and has passive safety measures to prevent a meltdown. The reactor building could still be built below grade to shield it from aircraft impacts and such. It would also be more compact than conventional nuke plants as it could run at higher temperatures and drive much smaller brayton cycle gas turbines rather than large steam ones.
The much lower projected price of energy from LFTR(when compared to wind or solar) would also indirectly have an effect on land use as follows. Take for example the vertical-farm concept which could produce massive amounts of food year round on minimal amounts of land,… The catch is for this to be economically viable one has to have access to large amounts of very cheap energy, and wind, solar and tidal are too expensive by far. Hence this is an example of how nuclear(especially cheap LFTR) could overall save a heap of land.

Paul asks…

What do you think of high rise vertical farms?

Concepts and experiments world wide say this is the farming of the future. It can be done hydroponically and use solar panels and wind power to produce a fantastic amount of food in towers on minimal square footage of ground space. Would you invest in it?

Windmill Farms answers:

Hydroponic farms are great ideas because they produce food faster, you can control the pests and the plants can be given the right amount of water so that it is not wasted.Another thing because the plants would be in a controlled environment you would not have spray harmful chemicals to get rid of bugs and disease.

Robert asks…

Does anybody Know why nuclear power satation’s chimeneis have a hyperboloid shape?

It’s not a frequent shape in architecture. do they have to be like that for any special reason? all nuclear power satation’s chimeneys are the same around the world, but their form is different from other power stations or factorys.
If anybody could give me some accurate information, or tell me how to find out, thanks.

Windmill Farms answers:

Nuclear power plants don’t really have chimneys. They’re cooling towers, and what’s coming out is steam. Most large cooling towers are shaped like this, even if it’s not a nuclear power plant. It keeps strong vertical wind currents from forming. If you had a straight vertical cooling tower, the air at the outside of the tower at the bottom would get heated and start to rise. Since as it went up, it would continue to be close to the surface of the cooling tower, it would accelerate. At the top, the heated dry air and the steam would mix and make a vertical pillar of hot air that would travel straight up, creating all sorts of havoc. With the curved sides, the air at the bottom will still be heated, but as it travels up, it moves away from the sides of the tower, hince not being heated as much, and traveling slower.

Lizzie asks…

Wind turbines shaped like long black poles (attenuator style) used horizontally as green field separators?

If each (new style) wind turbine is shaped like a long black pole, (attenuator style) and then mounted 3 foot about the ground horizontally, used like a fence as a green field separator?

This is a low impact idea, to make wind turbines more visually acceptable (almost unseen) as the appearance is fence like?

Would this work?

Windmill Farms answers:

First, the vertical axis windmills you are talking about can’t be packed in with that kind of density, enough room has to exist between turbines for the air flow to be normal again.

Second, the turbines would not achieve the wind block and micro-climate effects desired of field separators.

Third, wind turbines are not load following so they are only usable for base load power and must be augmented by standby peak power plants. Basically you can not have more than a small percentage of the grid prvided by wind power without stability issues.

Fourth, the vertical axis turbines are less efficient than the traditional horizontal axis turbines.

Helen asks…

Curious about solar powered cars?

I have been wondering for a few weeks off and on about solar powered cars. How come we dont have them yet? So far the only thing i have seen solar powered on a car is the air conditioner and as great as it is im not too impressed.. this has stemmed off from solar powered cars to alt fuels to why we still rely on fossil fuels so badly when the offshore drillings slowly killing our oceans and animals in those oceans who rely on it to be clean for them to live in.. which went to nuclear power plants STILL in existence.. these will put us in so much danger its inconceivable the impact it would have if something were to go terribly wrong.. which.. never drop your guard.. it could always happen .. has no one else heard of the giant chernobyl accident? Use windwills.. something other than what we use now.. We could be so much more energy efficient without killing the planet of people animals plants and what have you and yet we do nothing about it..

blah anyways off topic there.. but yes.. why do we not have solar powered cars.. with all the major bankruptcy going on i think they could find a good way to fix that and at the same time help the environment.. sadly im sure they would overprice the living crap out of them.. its always money before anything else with the bald heads..

i would like to know anyone elses opinions about this topic..

thanks a bunch

environmentalist pook :P
im sure this questions been asked a lot in this part of the forum.. sorry if it happens often

Windmill Farms answers:

Solar power is not efficient enough to directly power a car (Especially if raining or overcast all day). In Australia, and other places there are solar powered auto races but all the “cars” are not much more than slow moving 3 wheeled bicycles with flat tops covered with solar cells. They only carry one lightweight person. Large utility sized solar plants are planned for the southwestern part of the US. But we don’t yet have the battery technology to store this solar energy and move it around with us in a car.
Hoi yik also asked this question a few minutes ago. My answer to him was: People want to travel more than the 40 miles on batteries today’s affordable electric cars can give (read up on Chevy’s Volt, it only goes 40 miles before the gas engine kicks in). Tesla Motors has an electric car that runs on lithium metal oxide batteries, and the car can go one to two hundred miles before it needs a charge (problem – how long to recharge it), BUT the car cost over $100,000. Not affordable to most people.
Check out the web sites: http://earth2tech.com/2009/03/26/zenn-mo… And zenncars.com. The hope to soon sell a car that goes 500 miles on a 5 minute charge, and be affordable. EEstor’s combined battery/ultracapacitor does not seem to be ready (or they don’t have the money to ramp up production) yet. EEstor isn’t saying much. PS The “special equipment” need to recharge these batteries will be very easy to install in current gas stations, office parking lots, etc.
PS: Besides the Russians, nobody uses the type of reactor used to build Chernobyl. And even their similar reactors have been improved upon safety wise. Since the last reactor was built, technology has greatly improved.
And with desert solar power plants, people are against them because the turtles in the desert have survived in the sunlight for thousands of years. The environmentalists are afraid of what the effect of shade from the solar collectors will have on the desert life.
Todays wind mills (vertical, large slow moving blades) may not kill as many birds, but they still cause a decrease in air pressure which destroys the lungs (and kills) insect eating bats.
Millions of dollars have been spend on improving the safety of nuke plants and oil wells. When was the last time you read about a massive oil spill from an offshore well? They are all from old ships used to transport oil around the world.
So now, who can say one energy production method is safer than another?

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Comments are closed.