Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Improve the manufacturing process so they are cheaper and use less resources to build, make more durable so they last longer, and more reliable so they require less maintenance.There is still a long way to go in what is a relatively young industry, but it is growing because people realise once the initial cost of a wind turbine has been met, it is just pure profit with 0 input. Do you see a contradiction there?
ADK Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Wind energy is now profitable, this is why companies are building wind turbines all over the UK. Electric cars are not profitable.
Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Wind energy is now profitable, this is why companies are building wind turbines all over the UK. Electric cars are not profitable. They're only profitable because of govt subsidy which we pay out of our energy bills.
Zingari Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Wind energy is now profitable, this is why companies are building wind turbines all over the UK. Electric cars are not profitable. are they profitable in a pure sense or does it rely on subsidies ?
ADK Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 are they profitable in a pure sense or does it rely on subsidies ? Depends what your definition of profitable is. In terms of running costs vs revenue, yes they are profitable.
Guest Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Is it possible that there was no investment in this technology because it wasn't viable because fossil fuels were so much cheaper? What about nuclear energy? Why didn't the oil companies order the govt not to invest in that? The reason why we don't live in a perfect world isn't always down to some secret conspiracy. Nuclear was invested in to kill the Russians. War is a great motivator for invention and improvement. The A bomb was the most incredible weapon you could imagine. The government invested in it.
Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 Depends what your definition of profitable is. In terms of running costs vs revenue, yes they are profitable. So why do they need subsidies? Nuclear was invested in to kill the Russians. War is a great motivator for invention and improvement. The A bomb was the most incredible weapon you could imagine. The government invested in it. We(The USA) had the A bomb before we had nuclear power.
Guest Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 And there is nothing secret about the "conspiracy". It's called lobbying. Sadly wind farms cannot be the complete answer they don't generate enough energy. Technology needs to be allowed to improve efficiency for both wind and solar and tidal power in order for hem to be a reasonable option. Our real hope is Nuclear fusion. It has now been shown to work. But we need to invest in a prototype big enough to make it financially feasible, of course we aren't being funded to do that. Check out Brian Cox - manchester uni - on the reality of Fusion. Easily found on the net.
Guest Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 So why do they need subsidies? We(The USA) had the A bomb before we had nuclear power. Yes. The investment was made for the bomb. power was just a spin off. Very much like NASA and military pojects eventually filtering down to the common man. Stop arguing Webbo and go and read up on it. You aren't going to believe me anyway. Maybe you'll believe scientists.
Zingari Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 And there is nothing secret about the "conspiracy". It's called lobbying. Sadly wind farms cannot be the complete answer they don't generate enough energy. Technology needs to be allowed to improve efficiency for both wind and solar and tidal power in order for hem to be a reasonable option. Our real hope is Nuclear fusion. It has now been shown to work. But we need to invest in a prototype big enough to make it financially feasible, of course we aren't being funded to do that. Check out Brian Cox - manchester uni - on the reality of Fusion. Easily found on the net. He's too optimistic , to listen to him you'd have to believe that "things can only get better"
Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 And there is nothing secret about the "conspiracy". It's called lobbying. You said; Of course it's the car and petrol industry that has halted ALL forms of alternative power improvement. They have TOLD the governments not to help investment. That's not the same as lobbying. I agree with you about Fusion is our best hope but everything I read about it says it won't be viable any time soon.
Captain... Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 So why do they need subsidies? To slightly even the playing field against fossil fuels which receive more in government subsidies than renewable energies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels Do you see a contradiction there? I see no contradiction, they, like any other machine with working parts require maintenance, you improve reliability they you reduce costs, you improve durability they last longer and make more money. The zero input was in relation to the actual fuel required to generate electricity, of course there is input in terms of manufacturing costs and maintenance.
Zingari Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 It’ll ruin Emmerdale for me if they put feckin wind turbines everywhere !!
Guest Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 You said; That's not the same as lobbying. I agree with you about Fusion is our best hope but everything I read about it says it won't be viable any time soon. It would be ready in 20 years if we threw even a little money at it. 20 years is soon. And there are many forms of lobbying.
Guest Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 We don't need them. You think you've never been subsidised in your life? Have you ever taken any medicine?
ADK Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 You think you've never been subsidised in your life? Have you ever taken any medicine? Well i was referring specifically to onshore wind farms.
Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 It would be ready in 20 years if we threw even a little money at it. 20 years is soon. They said that 20 years ago.
Zingari Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 They said that 20 years ago. I'm sure I saw it on Tomorrow's World , just after the bit about hover boots and turning the Sahara into lush pasture land.
Webbo Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 I'm sure I saw it on Tomorrow's World , just after the bit about hover boots and turning the Sahara into lush pasture land. They also said we'd have an anti rape penis biter by now. As if.
Zingari Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 They also said we'd have an anti rape penis biter by now. As if. My missus’s fingernails have served that purpose well enough !
yorkie1999 Posted 27 July 2012 Posted 27 July 2012 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Perpetual motionis impossible.
davieG Posted 28 July 2012 Author Posted 28 July 2012 Wireless electric-car charging tech to be tested in London 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in. Perpetual motionis impossible. I don't believe anyone is suggesting it is.
Vacamion Posted 28 July 2012 Posted 28 July 2012 I love the fact that wind energy, though intermittent, is free. I love the fact that you don't need to drill this energy out of an Arab's back garden. I think that windmill farms are strangely beautiful and elegant - there are a LOT of them up here. I like the fact that Donald Trump was pissed off by windmills 'spoiling the view' from his golf course in Aberdeenshire. If it was up to me, the country would be coated with windmills.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.