Paul is correct that wind farms really only generate a very small amount of electricity compared to a conventional (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro-electric) power station. The same seems to be true of other renewable systems such as the "tide power" station on the Britanny coast. There doesn't yet exist a renewable energy source that's a serious contender for providing significant amounts of energy unfortunately.
GTM, to answer your point about whether the wind turbines are the most efficient system I think they must be, at least given current aerodynamics knowledge. Aerodynamics is an extremely complex subject and it's far too simplistic to suggest that what is best for a jet engine must be best for a wind turbine. You're not seriously suggesting that the designers of wind turbines have willfully, or through monumental incompetence, not used the best possible solution (given current knowledge) are you? I know very little about aerodynamics but there seems to be a "rule" in turbines/propellors that the larger they are or the slower the airflow through them, the less the number of blades they have.
Europe is getting close to having to make some tricky decisions. Energy demand is increasing all the time. This is particularly true for somewhat less developed countries like Portugal where there are still a fast growing demand for extremely energy hungry devices like air-conditioning, central heating, dish-washers etc. as these luxuries, once the reserve of the wealthy few are now being demanded by everyone for their houses. Fossil fuels are a no-no because of greenhouse gases and renewable sources can only provide a tiny fraction of what's required. The only alternative seen by many is a massive increase in the number of nuclear power stations. The supporters of nuclear claim it's now a lot less expensive and that the latest reactors produce far less waste than the older ones. I don't know if that's true but it seems likely. However, I really don't see any European government managing to convince the electorate of building a load of new nuclear stations. It would be political suicide. Even if there started to be electricity shortages and blackouts I still don't think people would go for nuclear.
Given that, I think there will have to be some serious thinking about drastic reductions in energy consumption, an area where less developed countries also have room to gain more. I also think that a lot more "local" energy production such as individual homes with solar water heaters, etc. should be looked into. Of course those things aren't cheap.
I personally, am against nuclear power for the same reasons I've always been against it:
- it produces very dangerous waste that has to be expensively disposed of and leaves a legacy for thousands of years
- it's potentially catastrohpic - no matter what security and safety measures you take there's always the possibility of an accident or terrorist strike causing a major Chernobyl style disaster.
- it's very expensive, to the extent of not being economically viable, which is why it was often subsidised by goverments to hide the true cost. This last argument may no longer be valid with modern stations.
There are some fairly hypocritical attitudes toward nuclear power though. Italy, for example, has a non-nuclear power policy but it imports huge amounts of electricity from France, which generates 50% (or more) of it's electricity from nuclear! Similarly, nuclear power stations are usually placed miles from any major population centres and often near the border with neighbouring countries so that if a disaster were to happen the other country would take half the fallout. Neither attitude shows a strong belief in the safety of nuclear. If it's so safe then why not put them near big cities where the power is needed (assuming appropriate water for cooling was available)?
Well, I've rambled on enough for now :shame:
Michael.
but I'm not sure whether it holds true - a wind turbine and a jet engine do different things, one is designed to push air as much as possible at high air speeds, the other is designed to be rotated as easily and freely as possible at (relatively) much lower wind speeds. As such maybe they need a different type of turbine blade with a different shape? Maybe W-M will know, he used to work for Dowty I think, and they make propellors,amongst other things....
, well I'm in favour if NIMBYism if it literally means 'not in my back yard!' for wind turbines - having them metres from ones home as mentioned in the first post wouldn't be nice from a noise point of view.
