What do you think Solar Power or Wind Farms?
Question:
It has been proved in Denmark and just recently in my home county of Fife that they are not as economical as they are made out to be.
Fife Council paid 50,000 pounds to put these on the roofs of some schools which resulted in a saving of less that 500 pounds.
Apparently they need at least 9 knots wind speed to make them efficient, something that we very seldom get in the UK.
I would much prefer that future building of houses, schools etc. have solar panels. They might be more expensive at the time, but they are less damaging to the environment and wild life.
Answer:
Interesting choices that you've given. I'd agree that solar is much more logical for many areas. They have proven to be most useful in high density areas. However don't knock wind turbines. They will work wonderfully...in the correct locations! Thanks for asking this question!
An absolute waste of money and a big con. These wind turbines need backup when the wind's not blowing, so that is double cost straight away.Also the energy that goes into making them in the first place is astronomical. We have some here on the east coast, and half the time they don't have enough wind to turn them.The trouble with solar panels is that the production costs are more than the units save.
I agree that Wind Farms are an eye sore. Solar power seems much easier to incorporate into our modern architecture by placing solar panels on the roofs of huge commercial buildings and warehouses such as Costco's and Wall-mart's. In doing so, we're not having to take up precious real estate or bulldoze ecosystems in the desert.
I would love to see more research into solar power and see it substitute traditional power sources, especially in areas that are sunny year-round. Go solar!
Neither, both cost a fortune and generate sod all, we'd have to cover the whole of Wales to even approcah our power needs if we used wind turbines.
Maybe its not SUCH a bad idea afer all then?
I agree with the other respondents. The most efficient means of saving energy are the solar heat collecting panels. The best way to produce electricity from nature is submerged turbines between islands and the mainland - in places like Scotland. As water is 1000 times denser than air a small undersea turbine will produce considerable more energy and the tides are reliable.
It must be better than fossil fuels. They may be more efficient but are they aren't helping our planet. Sooner or later these resources will run out and we will have no alternative but to use alternative energy. So like it or not, we will probably be using alternative, cleaner resources like wind, solar and wave that will not run out.
Wind is too erratic and sunshine is almost non existent some days, what is needed is a low cost solar panel that can be built into a roof, by that I mean that the whole roof north south east or west should be made of solar panels instead of slates or tiles the savings in roof tiles would offset some of the cost, and mass production could bring the price down to an affordable level. Doubtless they could be made in a more attractive colour. and the larger area would make up for the lack of sunshine, though what is still needed is storage capacity.
It all depends on where the energy is located and needed. Solar power, wind turbines, hydro, tidal, nuclear, geothermal are all answers to making renewable energy. I have never been to the UK, but it sounds like the wind and solar output are not reliable or strong enough for this to be a sensible solution. I would imagine that tidal and nuclear energy would be much better suited for your home country.
There are places where wind energy is actually effective. But mostly they take up a lot of space, look ugly, and are not worth it. Solar power is not much better, although it is making advances and may some day be worth it. But, unless you live in a desert, solar is not economically beneficial. Coal has become a very efficient provider for power, and it has come a long way and is pretty clean these days. Nuclear is a very good source as well, it is a bit more expensive than coal though. And unfortunately it has a stigma of being 'dangerous'. But in reality nuclear is very safe, the media just does not understand this and continues to paint an uneducated stigma on nuclear power.
But as far as fossil fuels running out, it will never happen! That is because they will become too hard to acquire and other power sources will become cheaper, like nuclear, geothermal, or fusion if we can get that to work. As of now, the United States has enough coal to power our power plants for 50 to 100 years. And we are starting research and implementation of bio-fuels. Fuels made from corn, soybeans, and other crops.
More Questions & Answers...