Thread: Nuclear Energy... pwned?

Originally Posted by Neo1

And i will not question that some wind turbines have been placed in forests, if you say it did then sure. But you must agree that this is ridiculous and counterproductive?

Not in a forest. In forested areas.
In southern Alentejo they went on to mount the turbines despite protests about 3 families of storks in the area. They promised they would not disturb the families; They were never seen again. Been 4 years. In Algarve they cut down some trees and clean the thick brush to make up for roads and whatever. I can't remember exactly about the land mammals. I seem to remember there having problems. But what I do remember is that the turbines displaced the birds of prey on the region. Been 4 years too.

Really, the turbines have an impact on the environment. Especially for birds. But also they constitute visual pollution. But if all this seems confusing and you believe there's no impact, ask around if anyone's happy about having wind turbines planted on their national parks.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Really, the turbines have an impact on the environment. Especially for birds. But also they constitute visual pollution. But if all this seems confusing and you believe there's no impact, ask around if anyone's happy about having wind turbines planted on their national parks.

No wind turbines in national parks, obviously, and again, you won't ever see a nuclear power plant in Yosemite National Park for example, it's just foolish and a bit strange to me. But 86% of danes either don't mind or enjoy the sight of wind turbines Mario. I guess we got used to them. I wouldn't go as far as to say that i enjoy the sight of them, but i certainly don't mind them, and they are most definitely far prettier than power coords or radio antennas!

I never said we should put wind turbines in national parks, or that we should knock down a lot of trees to make room for them. And i don't think that a governments' crazy descision to put wind turbines in treasured locations is an argument against wind power either.
We need to be smart about where we put them. Obviously trees hurt the windflow, and thereby the power output. We need to put them away from trees, we need to put them on fields where the surrounding area underneath the wings/blades can be used for agricultural purposes, or in the water where they bother noone, or in the desert or similar barren locations.
If no such locations are available, then look for other renewables that might be useful other than wind. Exhaust ALL options before turning to nuclear.
Also, we need to start placing tiny windmills on rooftops and in cities, just like we nowadays see solar panels everywhere, it's always been a mystery to me why the solar panels have monopoly on rooftops? Windmills are just as feasible, and in Denmark there is alot more wind than there is sun.

And ofcourse i agree that nuclear is better than coal.

Most advocates of Wind Power (and other renewables)
have absolutely no vested, personal interest it them.
They advocate it because it's the best solution.

Do you really believe that? Even I won't say that there aren't those out there that have definite vested interests in nuclear power. C'mon man are you that nieve? Here is a life lesson for you: if there is money to be made in it, someone somewhere has a vested interest in it.

But if you people want to live in a fantasy world where wind power supplies all of our power then so be it but reality and numbers and this little thing called math....means it will never happen.

Nuclear power is the future. It offers more bang for the buck than wind power, it pollutes less overall b/c it takes up less ground, it's waste can most likely be de-radiated with proper advances in technology, and the list goes on.

And as for the cancer rates I absolutely do not believe that. No more radiation radiates from a nuclear power plant than radiates from any other source we already have. What do you think these containment vessels are made of? Paper? They are made of steel re-enforced concrete and are usually anywhere from 5 to 10 feet thick for the shell with another 5 to 10 feet of re-enforcement before you even get to the actual reactor. Then the reactor sits underwater due to heat concerns which means....you could probably stand in the containment vessel while the thing was running if it was totally submerged. Obviously not a good idea when it is not submerged but you get the point. For the efficiency and power they offer I'll take nuclear over wind power or any other source any day of the year. The only other source that could compete with nuclear is fusion power but until advances are made in that area we are left with fission power. We have the answer to the world's power problems but b/c the greenies are soooo concerned about the waste it has been blocked off. Doesn't anyone think that we could figure out the waste problem over time and through advances in technology. Look how far we have made oil go. But if the greenies were alive back in the 1900's we would have never had oil production b/c they would have griped about the possible impacts of it. In other words we would still be in the 1900's if the greenies of today lived back then. Just b/c something has consequences or disadvantages doesn't mean you throw it all out the window. You improvise, adapt, and overcome the issues. If we took the same philosophies as the greenies in computer science....we would never choose any design patterns b/c they all have disadvantages and risks and we would never develop software b/c there is the off chance that our product could bomb out or crash. I mean we use computers everyday and yet there is the possibility they could crash and cause some horrific accident. Yet...we still use them. Technology requires risk management and nuclear waste, IMO, is just another form of risk management.

Many of you seem to believe that nuclear is evil and yet nuclear powers far more ships, subs, towns, cities, and states than wind power could ever hope to. In fact the power you are using right now to power your computer might very well have come from a nuclear power plant. If you are living in the US there is a 20% chance that the power you receive comes from a nuclear power plant. They put out a lot of power and without them the US power grid would be a big pile of poo. Why do you think electric cars are so viable in the US? It's b/c the US grid has so much 'extra' power at the end of the day that it could charge millions and millions of electric vehicles. Face it fellas, energy has to come from somewhere and with that there is risk. We see that in the Gulf, we see that in nuclear, we see that in almost every realistic viable source of energy. So you manage the risk and try to remove it if possible. But if you think you can remove all risk and find the perfect power source you are mistaken.

Wind power is not realistic. It takes too much land (much like solar power), is far too costly per kw/hr that it generates, does not last as long as other sources of energy, is not constant in that it relies on wind speed, etc, etc. The list is so long it would make any investor in his right mind shake in his boots.

So go ahead and buy stock in wind turbines b/c that leaves more nuclear stock for me.

Exhaust ALL options before turning to nuclear.

And a lot of money in the process which will bring you back to square one. It isn't realistic.

I could actually envision a power grid that used fusion reactors to generate elements that are needed for several fission reactors and also generate power in the process. So you would have fusion reactors for your main power source that would generate fuel or even water for the other supplemental sources of power on the grid. Wind power could supplement the power grid and no one is arguing that, but they cannot be the power grid. There is also tidal power, however, that is not all that efficient right now but could be with some advances in the field.

Originally Posted by Neo1

I never said we should put wind turbines in national parks, or that we should knock down a lot of trees to make room for them. And i don't think that a governments' crazy descision to put wind turbines in treasured locations is an argument against wind power either.

I think that at some point we lost track of the actual discussion.

This isn't about wind power not having its uses. This is about Nuclear Power having its uses. What started as an attempt to show what many agree is the lack of efficiency of the wind power alternative, seems to have been interpreted as saying no to wind power.

That is not the case. I personally have no love for those turbines. But hey, well located ones in countries with the right conditions to have them, sure. Instead I'm more concerned with the anti-nuclear campaign that is feed by an immense level of misinformation and downright lies. Especially by the same "environmentalists" that then go about spending oil and coal while they discuss how many million fans they need to install to give energy to their country.

Wind power is not realistic.

Pure wind power? No i'd give you that, not on a large scale. 75% wind power? I don't see why that would be impossible?
And in smaller isolated communities, pure wind power is most definitely possible.
Samsø - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It takes too much land (much like solar power), is far too costly per kw/hr that it generates, does not last as long as other sources of energy, is not constant in that it relies on wind speed, etc, etc. The list is so long it would make any investor in his right mind shake in his boots.

According to the Californian Energy Commision Wind power is a bit cheaper pr. MWh than nuclear:
Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is most likely because of the tax-discount stuff that is given when renewable energy is involved, but don't make it sound like wind-power costs an arm and a leg compared to other sources. Maintenance costs will be high, but thats it.

So go ahead and buy stock in wind turbines b/c that leaves more nuclear stock for me.

Vestas stock is not a bad deal at all actually It is a bit volatile but there is money to be made i reckon, i'm hardly an expert on that matter however! :P

VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS Share Price Chart | VWS.CO - Yahoo! Finance UK

And a lot of money in the process which will bring you back to square one. It isn't realistic.

Realistic? What do you mean? It's here! If i turn my head i can see a windmill from where i'm sitting (i can also see a coal plant actually , second largest one in the country), are you telling me it is all in my head?

Edit:

This isn't about wind power not having its uses. This is about Nuclear Power having its uses. What started as an attempt to show what many agree is the lack of efficiency of the wind power alternative, seems to have been interpreted as saying no to wind power.

It does have it's uses, it is stable, more stable than any of the renewables like solar and wind and wavepower and whatnot, so nuclear (or perhaps fusion in a couple of decades?) could very well be used as a secondary source that kicks in whenever it's cloudy or there is no wind. I just don't think we should rely totally on an energy source which has kryptonite coming out the back of it. As of now we have no sensible solution to getting rid of the nuclear waste, and if the only _real_ significant drawback to windpower is money, then i know where my preferences are.

That is not the case. I personally have no love for those turbines. But hey, well located ones in countries with the right conditions to have them, sure. Instead I'm more concerned with the anti-nuclear campaign that is feed by an immense level of misinformation and downright lies. Especially by the same "environmentalists" that then go about spending oil and coal while they discuss how many million fans they need to install to give energy to their country.

I too thought the pro-wind guy's argument about adding the deaths of a possible nuclear bomb attack to the nuclear power plants' annual avg. death rate or whatever it was, was complete nonsense and had no place in the debate, it kind of spoiled it for me actually. I realize that war and bombs and especially terror does not belong in a debate about nuclear power, this includes Chernobyl. All that is just scare-tactics and grasping straws and i loathe those kinds of "arguments". So i will definitely agree with you on that, we need rationality and facts, not all this political hot air.

Originally Posted by Bubba

I am saying that 100% wind power driven power grid is not realistic. Based on your comments I think we both agree on that. A 100% nuclear driven power grid is far more realistic given the numbers but I'm not promoting that either. I am saying that nuclear energy should be at the forefront of our concerns for the next great power source.

I guess the operative word here is "our". Although I've admitted I would not live near a nuclear reactor (tho I'd happy live near a wind farm), I would not protest them either (unless it was in my backyard -- so I cannot support them anywhere, because NIMBY-ism is hypocritical). I just find it strange that the right wing often seems determined to write-off ("right-off"? ) the most environmentally friendly options simply because they are environmentally friendly and the right wingers do not want to be perceived as "environmentally friendly" lest they lose some of their base because everyone knows, environmentalism is a hair's breadth from socialism!

Vis. "our" -- there is no solution that will provide a world wide electrical grid based 100% on one source. However, I do think that where feasible, wind power is a much better alternative to nuclear power, and it's success in places like Denmark seem to bear this out.

Originally Posted by MK27

I just find it strange that the right wing often seems determined to write-off ("right-off"? ) the most environmentally friendly options simply because they are environmentally friendly and the right wingers do not want to be perceived as "environmentally friendly" lest they lose some of their base because everyone knows, environmentalism is a hair's breadth from socialism!

You really have to stop doing this. This constant idea you have that everything can be summed up to leftists and rightists is abhorrent. You find nuclear supporters on both sides of the fence. Make no mistake. Don't even pretend this is a political matter. If it is for anyone, that's for you and any other extremists on both sides that can't even take a dump without that having some sort of ideological significance.

As for environmentalists, let it be known that not all support wind power. In fact, not many do. For the exacts problems of visual impact. That wind power is lauded as some kind of environmental friendly solution is one big joke that not many environmentalists find funny.

Remember, environmentalists are the same people who also don't appreciate dams in the least. And yet, these are clean also and have less impact on the landscape than wind turbines. With the added benefit that dams, if well studied, can in fact create new ecosystems.

However, I do think that where feasible, wind power is a much better alternative to nuclear power, and it's success in places like Denmark seem to bear this out.

Denmark has 5 million inhabitants. Not 10 million, not 20 million. And certainly not 230 million backed by a strong and productive economy. Get real!

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You really have to stop doing this. This constant idea you have that everything can be summed up to leftists and rightists is abhorrent.

I was merely engaging the spirit of the thread, inc. some of your own posts involving the word "environmentalist" which I can cite if you really want.

You find nuclear supporters on both sides of the fence. Make no mistake. Don't even pretend this is a political matter.

As I said, I neither support nor oppose nuclear power, because I honestly would not want to live close to a reactor for a prolonged period. But if places can be found where people are willing to have them, then that's fine with me. I guess I would have to move somewhere else at that point.

As for environmentalists, let it be known that not all support wind power.

I'm aware of this, but I do not think those people then turn around and say they would prefer nuclear power. If they did, I would investigate their credentials as "environmentalists", and I guarantee it would turn out they are corporate funded poseurs. I was an active environmentalist for years (and hope to be again in the future), I understand what goes on in that realm of discourse.

Denmark has 5 million inhabitants. Not 10 million, not 20 million. And certainly not 230 million backed by a strong and productive economy. Get real!

I think most places on earth can be broken down to that scale. Eg, NYC is ~ 8 million, and if Denmark can get 25% of it's power from wind, there is no reason we can't -- NYC and Long Island have hundreds of miles of coastline where offshore windfarms would be easily feasible (most of the Eastern seaboard would be ideal for this). I live by the beach, and an issue right here right now is this one:

Massive LNG Plant Off Rockaway Shore? | www.rockawave.com | Wave of Long Island

Now, I wonder what people would prefer: an offshore windfarm, or an offshore liquid natural gas processing facility which terrorism or human error could render lethal to hundreds of thousands of people? They may have to look at "unsightly" steel towers miles away but at least they could still swim in the water safely.

I think most places on earth can be broken down to that scale. Eg, NYC is ~ 8 million, and if Denmark can get 25% of it's power from wind, there is no reason we can't -- NYC and Long Island have hundreds of miles of coastline where offshore windfarms would be easily feasible (most of the Eastern seaboard would be ideal for this). I live by the beach, and an issue right here right now is this one:

Denmark goes to bed at night. Denmark doesn't have to support massive industry. It's relatively agricultural.

But for the sake of logic I did some quick math. Let's say for a moment, that we (the United States) decided to get all of our power from wind turbines.

The United States, in 2006, consumed 29.26 Petawatt-hours of electricity. 40.1% was actual electric power - the stuff that goes through power lines (Power lines which will still be around regardless of the source of electricity, mind you). That means 11.73 PWh, or about 1,339,041,095.89 MW of electricity per hour if my math is correct.

The average commercial wind turbine has a "nameplate rating" of 2MW. That's a big turbine in ideal conditions. I'm being generous.

So that means we'll need 500 million wind turbines.
"Not such a big deal, a few thousand here, a few thousand there, we'll have it done"
Not so fast.

One turbine of that size costs $1.2 to $2.6 million dollars to manufacture and install - not to mention maintenance. That means that the cost to install 500 million is about 1.6 to 3.5 quadrillion dollars. That's a lot - USA's GDP is 14.6 Trillion. I'm leaving out economics of scale, but still...

To operate efficiently, a turbine with a rotor diameter of 60 meters (that's an average size) needs an area of 180 meters by 300 meters. That's how they do it in wind farms.
So that's .02 square miles. Not so bad, right? Well, multiply by 500 million and you get... 10 million square miles. That's 2.5 times the entire land area of the United States of America.

Wind power doesn't seem so realistic anymore now, does it?

Originally Posted by bernt

Denmark goes to bed at night. Denmark doesn't have to support massive industry. It's relatively agricultural.

New York City does not support much industry either. Nb. it also has a tremendous potential for tidal power.

Wind power doesn't seem so realistic anymore now, does it?

It seems extremely realistic, since in fact it is real.

And (once again) no one is saying we need rely on anything 100%. My point is just that as much as possible, I would prefer to see wind power. If we could only get 20% from wind, 10% from solar, and 20% from hydro, then that could be supplemented with 50% nuclear. I think eliminating coal one way or another should be a priority, meaning it would be better to replace the coal with wind, solar, hydro, and tidal power and once that has been maximized, replace it with nuclear. Giving up on alternatives and saying we should just aim for 80-100% nuclear is a bad idea, even it we could do it today (and as usual, f**k tomorrow).

Vis, your calculations, big wind mills are 4-6MW, not 2.

Let's not forget that all the Danes effort that populated its almost entire landscape with wind turbines still only accounts for 20% of national power production. Meanwhile (and here's the funny bit):

- A massive effort to reduce power consumption took place through government policies that include obligatory use of A rated electrical equipment across the country

- Denmark has one of the highest, if not the highest, car taxes in the world. Around 100% just in taxes. Goes up to 180% on imported cars.

- Denmark is the 3rd largest oil producer in Europe, behind Norway and UK. Say again?

- Because of the huge government subsidized effort to raise wind power production, in Denmark around 80% of the electricity bill is taxes. No matter where that energy actually comes from. Remember, only 20% of that energy is actually from a wind source.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Let's not forget that all the Danes effort that populated its almost entire landscape with wind turbines still only accounts for 20% of national power production.

I have spent time in Denmark and they do not cover anything like "almost the entire landscape". There is no sign of them at all for the most part.

- A massive effort to reduce power consumption took place through government policies that include obligatory use of A rated electrical equipment across the country

Sounds like a good idea! The best kind of idea! Reduce consumption, intelligently.

- Denmark has one of the highest, if not the highest, car taxes in the world. Around 100% just in taxes. Goes up to 180% on imported cars.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but good for them. The effects of this definitely are noticeable there. Way fewer new and luxury import vehicles. Very distinct even just on the highway when you cross over from Germany. Very popular in urban areas: BIKES.

- Because of the huge government subsidized effort to raise wind power production, in Denmark around 80% of the electricity bill is taxes.

So what you mean is the electricity bill helps to pay for the electricity production? Bizarre.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Let's not forget that all the Danes effort that populated its almost entire landscape with wind turbines still only accounts for 20% of national power production. Meanwhile (and here's the funny bit):

This is entirely untrue, as of 2009 the combined wind-turbine output was 3465MW. Using bernt's numbers (2MW pr. turbine, 0.2 sq. mi. pr. windmill) we get a total of 1733 turbines nationwide. This equals 346 sq. mi. total, which is just over 2% of the total landmass of the country (Not the kingdom mind you). And this is not taking into account that a noticeable amount of these mills are in the water, not on land.

- A massive effort to reduce power consumption took place through government policies that include obligatory use of A rated electrical equipment across the country

Yet a dane uses around 6600 kWh per capita per year, which is actually slightly more than the UK, and Holland and Spain, while just slightly less than Germany. We are not extreme energy preservers.

- Denmark has one of the highest, if not the highest, car taxes in the world. Around 100% just in taxes. Goes up to 180% on imported cars.

A great way to get people to use public transport and to minimize the number of new cars bought, cars cost CO2 to build you know. Oh and it funds most of the wind-power infrastructure

- Denmark is the 3rd largest oil producer in Europe, behind Norway and UK. Say again?

Yes we are oil pigs, since Greenland is Danish soil we own alot of oil off the coasts up there. We are down by a couple of million barrels from 2008 to 2009 however.

- Because of the huge government subsidized effort to raise wind power production, in Denmark around 80% of the electricity bill is taxes. No matter where that energy actually comes from. Remember, only 20% of that energy is actually from a wind source.

Everything here is taxes, we have the highest taxes in the world on everything, but there have been no significant increase in power costs due to the wind infrastructure that i know of, actually the only increase recently came when the government decided to privatize the energy providers, what do you know.

Originally Posted by Neo1

This is entirely untrue, as of 2009 the combined wind-turbine output was 3465MW. Using bernt's numbers (2MW pr. turbine, 0.2 sq. mi. pr. windmill) we get a total of 1733 turbines nationwide.

Actually I'm not sure what you are talking about. By 2007, and after you replaced the old network (which peaked at around 6000 turbines in the year 2000), you had around 2,500 turbines. That number has surely grown because in the last 3 years you increased your production levels.

All this in a country with 43,000 Km2. Sorry, Neo. But I know Denmark. And I know Danes. And your whole positive outlook on what is happening to your country is frankly knew to me. Personally I think its criminal what your government is doing. But I'm not the only one. And don't take me wrong when I say I suspect your stance is not representative of the vast majority of the population living outside the cities in your country.

Yet a dane uses around 6600 kWh per capita per year, which is actually slightly more than the UK, and Holland and Spain, while just slightly less than Germany. We are not extreme energy preservers.

Which has only been aggravating the tax weight on your lives.

A great way to get people to use public transport and to minimize the number of new cars bought, cars cost CO2 to build you know. Oh and it funds most of the wind-power infrastructure

Again, you surprise me. Because while that was the intention, it isn't really working that well, is it? On the contrary, car sales in Denmark keep climbing while at the same time, because they are so expensive, Denmark has one of the oldest car population in Europe... which means generally speaking, Danish cars are less efficient and more polluting than in the rest of Europe.

Everything here is taxes, we have the highest taxes in the world on everything, but there have been no significant increase in power costs due to the wind infrastructure that i know of, actually the only increase recently came when the government decided to privatize the energy providers, what do you know.

The cost is in the taxes you pay. I'm sure you are fully aware what a *tax* is. And with your deficit breaking the 4.9 record and your government needing to find an extra 85 million kroner somewhere, I wonder what taxes they will raise that they haven't already. Raising the 80% energy tax? The 105% car tax?