It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
That stuff in the sky above Drax is just water vapour. The big structures are cooling towers, to cool the steam which has just driven the turbines that generated the electricity.
According to their website, Drax burns 70% renewable biomass and 30% coal.
http://www.drax.com/about-us/
And I thought you were a Green Lover....pffffft
In the context of hiding these devices from view, there's a simple answer - you can't!
There's also little option to soften any visual impact, beyond making them non reflective so they don't flash as they turn.
A ground observer will always see them as a silhouette against a sky (which will have some illumination content if you can see, even at night). The brightness can effectively never be matched (at least passively) so you'll always see it.
It might be possible to achieve some match in sky colour, but that varies hugely through the time and seasons, even in one locale, so in practice can never be done effectively. A quick look at the various underside colours of military aircraft and the different shades of warships across navies makes this crystal clear.
The brightness matching has rarely been attempted in practice, with one of the very few successes being the RAF U boat chasing during WW2, but that took a separate lamp and genny - not really a renewable energy solution.
Did you see the recent documentary on the building of the new cover for the Chernobyl reactor? Remarkable engineering - essentially something the size of a sports stadium that has to be built to tolerances that mean the whole thing will be airtight, last for up to a hundred years, and moved into place as a single unit. The idea is to allow the old 'sarcophagus' and the reactor building to be safely dismantled robotically over up to the next hundred years and the most radioactive parts to be sent away for storage or treatment elsewhere, which will shorten the time the complex is dangerous. Of course it will probably cost more than building all the nuclear power stations in the world put together...
There's also a Chinese (I think) company who wants to use the exclusion zone for the world's largest solar generation site. It would seem ideal given that it's now useless for habitation or agriculture. I would say storing the world's spent nuclear fuel in it as well would solve two problems at once.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Drax emissions are subject to strict EA emissions limits just like all other fossil fuel burning plants, the emissions stack has a monitoring system installed and the EA will inspect regularly and check historical data from the emissions system. Breaches are extremely serious and could result in immediate voluntary plant shut down. The air around the plant is perfectly safe and clean enough.
If you really want to help reduce emissions, stop using electricity because renewables alone will never provide enough power for human consumption, and stop eating farmed meat as well so less cows fart methane into the atmosphere.
The efforts of the UK to reduce emissions are like pissing in the wind as we only produce 1% of the worlds emissions of CO2.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
Also true - the important player is China. They've now announced an end to building new non-renewable capacity after 2020 - although whether they can achieve that is another question.
What will solve the problem in the end is that we're getting close to the tipping point where renewable isn't just the right way to generate power, it's the *best* way - once it becomes cheaper (which it will, because it's inherently more efficient if it can be done on a big enough scale), simple economics will do the rest. That's the reason we don't use steam railway locomotives any more - not because they were dirty, but because they were inefficient.
Cutting energy use is also more efficient, so once the new technology becomes cheap enough to offset the initial purchase cost, that will have the same effect. LED light bulbs are a perfect example.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
And you wonder why I'd prefer to live near a wind turbine than a power station?
Agreed - reducing energy consumption is key, which is what I have been doing myself for about thirty years. But I reckon that the tiny difference I can make on my own is going to be dwarfed by a few wind turbines.
Hmm, in the previous paragraph you argued that if I want to see any change, I should do my bit. And in the next paragraph you're arguing that if we do our bit as a country it'll make no difference. It's difficult to know where to start unpicking such a nonsense cycle of contradiction, so let's not bother.
For me it's still simple and clear, a clean wind turbine is a preferable source of energy to a polluting fossil fuel power station or a toxic waste producing nuclear power station. Since we as a country will continue using electricity and continue generating it, I would rather we did that as cleanly and sustainably as we can.
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
http://www.withouthotair.com/c14/page_87.shtml
we have nearly the highest tidal range in the world, 7m I think, up to 15m
worldwide average is 2m or 3m
also we lots of coast per person, most countries have little or none
Even then , tide and wave are only a small amount compared to what we need in the UK
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum