« Green Drinks Brisbane | Amusing Ourselves to Death »
Matt on Tue, 24th Mar 2009 11:32 am
Worth looking at the losses in the network for a bit of research – it is a major factor too.
If we could have a lossless system, we could power ourselves off geothermal, wind and solar with no need for burning stuff!
When you look at proposals like Coopers Gap Wind Farm, and the potential in them, it makes you wonder why we even bother with coal fired power!
Something I am a big advocate for is the need to become less reliant on centralised infrastructure – simplified to be, power sources for areas of settlement (not reliant on one massive power station!!!).
Fascinating stuff for sure…
stuart on Tue, 24th Mar 2009 2:35 pm
I am planning on making my next (or second-next) cartoon on matters relating to energy loss Matt. Thanks for the comments as always.
Gexy on Sat, 28th Mar 2009 11:26 pm
Did you like the cartoon ‘Doug’, You have a very easy on the eye style, much like that Saturday morning timewaster. Loving the inkwork, keep up the good fight.
Also – most enterprises need to make money to exist. many farmers/landowners/state forests could make a reasonable cottage income using their land as a rpower source. for dairys it would offset effluent and carbon costrs.
Wind Power Is Not Intermittent? « John Cameron's Blog on Sat, 1st May 2010 8:28 am
[…] Wind Power Is Not Intermittent < Recombinant Records. […]
Traven on Wed, 5th May 2010 3:39 am
Last week, Germany saw a swing of wind power production of 10 GW within 48 hours. And there was no storm, which can easily shut down way more capacity in 24 hours. The geographical spread helps a lot to make wind power reliable 80% of the time, but that’s not nearly reliable enough to make it remotely “baseload-ready”.
Mike Roberts on Wed, 5th May 2010 5:05 am
What is being done by having windmills that run balance those that do not is creating redundancy. This comes at a cost of building more windmills. The question is: how many more? If a windmill can generate 2kW, but due to low winds only generates 1kW, we have to build a second windmill at a similar location just to get a steady 2kW.
A second point is that although you don’t need coal plants, you do need generators. That’s hardly a big difference. A better solution would be battery storage, but they have their own problems especially with disposal.
roy on Wed, 16th Feb 2011 12:29 am
I like your cartoons….but im not such a huge fan of windmills…i feel like a cartoon could easily be made to show negative effects. Dont wanna be a debbie downer, but look into bird and bat kills, high frequency speakers that are used to deter bats, but have as of yet unknown impacts on other animals, ppl, etc. Strobe effect of windmills currently destroying ppls lives, low frequency hum problems..plus the lube in the tower leaking…point taken, windmills are a good answer to our energy problem…but i do feel we r moving tooo fast, throw em up all over the place, then figure out the negatives…they wanted to put those windmills @ cape cod, I often wondered how many diesel powered tugs and work boats, greasy cranes, etc…it would take to install one windmill. the closer i look at green tech the more i realize the only thing Green is Money…just sayin..love ur site though
Leo Smith on Tue, 8th Mar 2011 12:26 am
Oh dear. Mr Cameron should examine the wind output figures for the UK in Dec 2010. In one of the coldest months ever recorded, wind output across the whole UK never rose above 5% of capacity and averaged at just 2%. Indeed, the weather conditions that caused this outage existed across the whole of NW Europe.
So, just another bit of windpower spin easily refuted with actual FACTS.
Beau on Wed, 23rd Mar 2011 10:18 pm
Wind power does have a great deal of potential if initial funding is applied to some good research of the proposed sites. However one of the greatest hurdles is the perception of the public in the areas where they are installed (i.e. low socio-economic and rural (do I need to spell out implications)). Also limiting is the proximity to people and livestock and the shadowing effects that the blades (think epilepsy and frequency of light flashes (yes epilepsy can effect cows)). Some towers also have noise problem once wind speed hits certain levels and causes noise, however this is an engineering problem that is easily resolved. Roy Bird kills are primarily a problem if poor research is done and wind farms are places along migratory pathways, otherwise most evidence suggests that diurnal birds can see and avoided the individual towers. Nocturnal species have different feeding patterns that for some species can lead to unacceptable death rates (same reason as bats- see below) but a good EIA will cover these problem (as long as ministerial discretion doesn’t come into it (stupid over 30 million dollar project rule)). Bats become a problem if the towers are placed within corridors between nesting woodland areas and prime feeding areas, however spacing between individual towers can influence this a great deal given bats echolocation and the subsequent ability to navigate around objects that any human would have trouble seeing in the dark.
Beau on Wed, 23rd Mar 2011 10:23 pm
Sorry I didn’t explain for nocturnal birds properly. Instead of echolocation, they often have sight that puts digital cameras to shame. Thus can avoid the blades if spacing is appropriate.
DeuxDeux on Tue, 6th Sep 2011 10:10 am
Awesome point Beaue. Speaking of bird strikes and wind farms:
DeuxDeux on Tue, 6th Sep 2011 10:12 am
67 Golden Eagles killed per year (throughout 30 years)!
Joe on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 8:42 pm
Wind turbines have destroyed some of the most beautiful landscapes in the UK. The debate about wind power always centers around global warming and our carbon footprint, but I’m afraid even if they satisfied our entire energy requirement I still wouldn’t have them as I believe they are such an eyesore.