well im not sure if its a "woot" or not, but japans solution to co2 emissions was nuclear as they didnt have any other alternativesQuote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Printable View
well im not sure if its a "woot" or not, but japans solution to co2 emissions was nuclear as they didnt have any other alternativesQuote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your expertise in the field and I am not prepared to argue against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offender90
I only like to comment (based in articles read about them which are in use in Uruguay) that the Db levels are not over 45.
I have managed to find some manufacturer data for the Energy Ball V200 that I do not if if of any use to you.
The report was done by Lichtveld Buis & Partners BV who are Acustic Consultants based in Holland the is date 2009 so perhaps some improvements are there from them or other manufacturers.
The maximum noise was 50db @ 10m/s
Cheers
Arthur
If that's how you want to look at it...Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
What I've understood from the opinions expressed on this thread so far is:
1.) Of the renewables, only hydro, and possibly solar thermal + storage can provide reliable basepower. Hydro is limited to locations which have a suitable geography (water flow and hills), which unfortunately excludes most of mainland Australia. Solar thermal + storage is relatively new by the sounds of it but perhaps one to watch / investigate.
2.) Solar photovoltaic is good for meeting localised peak power demand, but can be problematic for the power grid if an area's too saturated.
3.) Large scale wind farms are clean and can provide a good portion of power but require a backup for baseload. They also pay themselves off quickly. Australia's a big country, and perhaps it's possible to link up a number of wind farms spread over a large area, to ensure reliable baseload delivery.
4.) There's a considerable amount of support for nuclear on this forum, although there are a few people with (grave?) reservations. It's not completely risk free, and it's not completely clean. however it appears to be one of the best and cheapest basepower alternatives. Thorium reactors appear to be several orders of magnitude safer, and Australia has bucketloads of reserves.
Personally I've always thought that photovoltaic solar + potential energy storage would be a good way for individual households to be "grid-free", but that's a half baked thought at best at the moment. The potentialy energy storage would consist of two large water tanks connected via a plumbed in pump/generator assembly. Excess energy would be used to pump water from the bottom tank to the top tank, with water from the top tank used at night to drive the hydroelectric generator to meet night demand.
Small head would equal very large tanks, large head equals small tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offender90
.
Thanks Arthur,Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
According to the report, the turbine makes 50dB(A) measured at 50m with a wind speed of 10m/s. That's for a 2.25kW turbine. Environmental noise regulations typically allow a maximum night time noise emission of 30 to 35 dB(A) in residential areas without "extraneous noise sources" such as industry, roads or commercial in the vicinity. These noise criteria apply at the nearest residential boundary.
The nearest residential boundary would need to be approximately 500m away for the wind turbine to be allowed to run at 10m/s wind speeds at night. If it only runs during the day, it would need to be ~100m away to run at 10m/s. and that's for only one 2.25kw turbine, so not overly practical. There are a lot quieter turbines available (vertical axis wind turbines)., but even so, difficult to achieve compliance with only s few small turbines.
only have 3 to 6m (single or double storey house) to make it practicalQuote:
Originally Posted by wrinklearthur
Thank you for your informative reply. Noise levels is a problem, even some air condition units make to much noise and should not be used in suburbs were houses are at 10m from each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
Have you an opportunity to look the saphonian turbine made by Saphon Energy?
Cheers
Arthur
Do yourselves a favour and get some facts from a bloke who is an actual expert in the energy sector.
Evcricket's Energy | Looking at the interface between government, heavy industry and energy policy
Cheers,
Adam
Some old information (I cannot reference it at the moment) but maybe of some interest.
1. As of a couple of years ago the total amount of nuclear waste amounted to 20,000 tonnes - given the heavy weight of the stuff the volume is relatively small. Also this is the final end state of nuclear material that is of no further use and that in many cases as nuclear material is used it can then be used in other processes (sometimes enriched as well). The is not to diminish the risks involved in dealing with waste but the volumes are not as large as you would think.
2. If all the worlds power requirements were to be met by nuclear power the raw uranium in the ground would only last 50 years before it was all gone - noting the product can be reused/resurrected into different versions before it ends up being stored in the big salt mine in the sky. So the effective life of nuclear power would be much longer however like fossil fuels nuclear power based on uranium in the ground does not have an unlimited life.
3. Australia is the only place where you will find uranium ore in such concentration that that it is sustaining low level nuclear reactions - Australia has two natural nuclear reactors.
Some interesting information.
No Adam, I get information from many sources not only one. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by akelly
One among many of the reasons why I am against nuclear power it is because if it is run by a private company profit it is the number one priority and adding to that the "common fault" of humans greed (which regardless of the implications that can cause is always present) we have a recipe for disaster.
Do not forget the factor corruption as well which is present when regulatios are to tight to make possible a "reasonable" profit.
No, I will not risk the planet when negligence is always blamed for disasters and are quickly fixed by a simple sorry and assurances that it will never happen again.