Why did Windmills install engines 150 years ago?

Question

I took my soon to visit a Windmill in Ashford, Kent this Saturday. This was a fascinating one to one tour and the guide really new his stuff. I recommend it to everyone with small children, they even let the kids grind their own flour from corn.

However, I did find one aspect especially interesting. I was very surprised to find that the mill hand a 150 year old Oil powered engine installed. The guide explained that this was done because Wind power is very unpredictable and unreliable. No wind, no bread! The villagers at the time got sick of it.

Are we trying to chase an old technology that really never worked in the first place with wind farms? Could we really expect to run our modern 21st century infrastructure on these kind of unreliable renewables or is Nuclear the only realistic option?

Answer 1

Wind power is variable and is definitely not a constant. A good source of (non)renewable but non-petro power is hydro power. If you have a river with a constant flow, you can then generate a steady source of power.
The other best non-petro power solution is as mentioned in another answer, nuclear.
We have the technology to use and to safely store the spent fuel so why not use nukes?
BECAUSE THE ENVIROWHACKS AND LIBS WON'T LET US!

Answer 2

This is so interesting.A few weeks ago,my wife and i took a trip to a wind farm where you go up 300 or so steps inside,to a revolving platform Nice view.We had a guy on the tour[these are bookable every 2 hours] who obviously knew his stuff.He asked questions like how many kilowatt per hour etc,you get the picture,but the guide couldnt give any answers,because he didnt have any,but it was apparent that it didnt produce enough power[2 of them]to run the centre let alone anything else.My conclusion after this was they are nothing but a money making scheme for a select few.I have asked if they are that good why all new house builds dont include blades and generator,linked to each other so the wind is always getting some of them.But that would mean no electricity bills for that area,only back up support bills.Its been said that even if they get all the wind farms they can,it will still be less than five per cent for the grid.Where can i buy shares,sounds to good to miss Stay Lucky

Answer 3

I agree with Jello, both have a role and we need to consider every option. The technology of wind today is much better than in bygone days, but doesn't work everywhere. Out in the wide open spaces wind technology can produce respectable amounts of power. It's important to note that when you use wind in a windmill you slow the wind down, and remove some of the energy. That eventually ends up added to the environment as heat. That doesn't mean it can't do a good job, just that when it comes to conservation of energy, there's still no free lunch.

Nuclear is and always has been our best option. I agree that the waste disposal issues are mostly solved from the technical standpoint, but that's not true politically. In the USA almost all of our low level waste still sits in "holding areas" where it's been piling up since the 1970's. We have a plan (sort of) for the high level waste, but not the low level, and there is much more low level. There is also the issue of transporting the high level waste long distances (usually by rail) across public and private land, through populated areas. Today we have the issue of the security of the wastes, as the high level stuff can be reprocessed to weapons grade, and the low level stuff can be used for "dirty bombs".

Back in the 1950's Admiral Hyman George Rickover ran the US nuclear program when it began. It was a military program at the time. He advocated developing some of the more advanced nuclear technologues (rather than the water cooled type we mainly use). He also recommended aggressively deploying nuclear plants so our fossil fuels cound be conserved (as the Russians did) The politicians went ahead and moved nuclear power out of military control to civilian, and stuck with the earliest type of reactor. The design of these was never standardized as some other countries did. No two of them are alike. I live near the Wolf Creek plant, and I can tell you the cost over-runs, safety and reliability record is atrocious. The other important point is the type of reactors we have used up until this point are not NET energy producers, if you include mining and transportation costs, manufacturiing costs, water related issues, etc. DOE and OTA evaluated all types of energy sources back in the 1970's, and if anything, many of the component costs have risen since then. It's also noteworthy to note that under Rickover, nuclear technology had a perfect safety record. Today, it's one of the worst in all industry.

While I support a role for nuclear power, it's best not to promote the idea that we have a "plug and play" situation, where we could make the decision today, and go nuclear tomorrow. That's simply untrue. There would still be a huge amount of work to be done, and large costs ahead.

Answer 4

Yes, on my grandfather's farm he used a windmill to pump water from a well for the cattle.

As a small child I noticed an anomaly, that is, he also had a lawnmower engine hooked up to it.

When I asked him about the lawnmower engine, my granfather replied that when there is no wind he uses that lawnmower engine to run the pump when there is no wind.

When there is wind, he uses the windmill.

At least we have a power grid. When we do not have wind in one area we often have wind elsewhere.

I like wind turbines because they do not produce waste and they are cost effective. The current cost of production of electricity using wind turbines is approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour (1), which is cost competitive with fossil fuels.

I realize that it is more challenging to use wind turbines on a grid system because the wind is not always predictable.

The one source of energy that we do need to eleminate is coal.

Over half of the electricity generated in the United States is generated by coal.

Coal is contaminated with Uranim and Thorium(2), two very dangerous radioactive elements. The Uranium and Thorium are concentrated in the coal ash which is left in huge piles on the open ground.

Also Uranium and Thorium go up the smokestack with the fly ash and contaminate the surrounding country side.

Coal fired power plants create far more radioactive nuclear waste than nuclear power plants!!!!!!!!!!!

And unlike nuclear power plants that waste is left out in the open on the ground.

Although I prefer that wind turbines be used to replace coal fired power plants, I realize that it would take millions of wind turbines to do that and it may not be fesible to replace all of the coal fired power plants with wind turbines.

Nuclear power plants are less damaging to the environment that coal fired power plants, they produce less radioactive waste than coal fired power plants and that waste is much easier to contain.

Although I do not consider nuclear power plants to be a desirable source of energy, they are less dangerous and produce much less toxic waste than coal fired power plants.

Answer 5

Wind power with our current technology is a much more reliable means of capturing energy than 150 years ago, but it will never be anything but a fractional portion of humanities energy requirements.

Answer 6

flour windmills were about 5% efficient at best.

windfarms are 60% efficient.

Windfarms contribute to the national grid, not an isolated system with no alternative power.

Its normally windy somewhere, waves normal rise and fall somewhere.....

Very few people say wind power is to be relied upone by itself.

You are not comparing like for like

nuclear power stations produce such dangerous polutants that we still, 50 years on, do not know how to dispose of them - we just literally "bury" the problem. I bet our decendants will be queuing up to praise us.

Answer 7

All the experts accept that wind alone won't solve our energy problems. At best, they will provide only supplemental energy, and only in very limited places. At worst, they cost more money than they save.

Answer 8

Wind works, but not everywhere. Any yes we need to bebuilding more nuclear power as well.

Unfortunately, there are still some that get scared using that mysterious 'hot rock' as a source of energy.