Nuclear Energy... pwned?

YouTube - Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

Awesome TED debate about whether or not we
should embrace Nuclear Energy on a global scale.

Against Nuclear Energy:
Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson: a professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
Mark Z. Jacobson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Nuclear Energy:
Stewart Brand: A writer who has written stuff
about things.
Stewart Brand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think Mark Jacobson made a much more compelling
argument as to why we shouldn't move towards
Nuclear Energy and instead embrace renewable sources.
I declare him the winner of the debate.

I think they both make compelling arguments.
I agree that renewable sources are better in that they have a much smaller footprint, wind especially. Turbines are prettier than smoke stacks, too. And it's better for the environment.
However, it's hard to ignore that influential raw power pumping advantage that nuclear has over wind.
I also thought Jacobson's terrorism argument was a joke.

I personally like renewable better, but acknowledge that it's not as convenient of a choice as nuclear, as could often be the realistic choice.

Quote:

---

Turbines are prettier than smoke stacks, too.

---

1. They require enormous amounts of land to produce anything noteworthy
2. They cause land pollution...in that they are a huge eye sore. Once the novelty wears off they get ugly.
3. They are not fun to live around - the shadows created by the turning of the blades can get very annoying fast.
4. They can be dangerous in high wind situations as evidenced by several videos where wind turbines have separated due to high stress.
5. They require a lot of maintenance per kw/hr of production

My home state has huge wind turbine farms along the I-55/51 North are near Bloomington and up north to just south of Chicago. They were cool at first but once constructed most people began to tire of them quickly.

Nuclear energy produces very dangerous waste that we do not know how to deal with adequately. However having lived in a town where a nuclear power plant was I can say they have almost no effect on the surrounding environment other than the aforementioned waste which affects the area where it is taken to. Refueling causes about 1 month of downtime and there is a lot of maintenance done during this time as well. They are heavily fortified structures, and now after 9/11 they are also heavily guarded. They are not usually affected by weather and they produce enormous amounts of energy vs the amount of land they require to do so. One power plant can produce far more power than thirty giant wind farms and require less maintenance, etc. Think about the maintenance required for acres and acres of wind farms and all the gas wasted to travel back and forth between them. Most nuclear power plants have on-site maintenance and thus require less fuel to maintain.
If the waste (spent rods) could be treated to be inert then nuclear power would rate just under fusion power as the cleanest and most efficient power available. There are rumors that spent rods can be bombarded with x-rays which reduces the radioactivity of the rods. If this is true then nuclear could definitely be the next power source for the world. Of course I am biased b/c I have friends working in the nuclear power industry but it really could be the 'perfect' power if the waste could be dealt with effectively.

I really believe anyone touting wind power as the future has a vested interest in it and a financial reason to hype it up. It does not compare to nuclear power in any sense of the word. I would take 1 nuclear power plant over 50 state-size wind farms any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

1. They require enormous amounts of land to produce anything noteworthy
2. They cause land pollution...in that they are a huge eye sore. Once the novelty wears off they get ugly.
3. They are not fun to live around - the shadows created by the turning of the blades can get very annoying fast.
4. They can be dangerous in high wind situations as evidenced by several videos where wind turbines have separated due to high stress.

---

Place them at sea - 4/5 solved.

Quote:

---

My home state has huge wind turbine farms along the I-55/51 North are near Bloomington and up north to just south of Chicago. They were cool at first but once constructed most people began to tire of them quickly.

---

I bet most people wouldn't enjoy living next to a nuclear power plant either.

Quote:

---

I really believe anyone touting wind power as the future has a vested interest in it and a financial reason to hype it up. It does not compare to nuclear power in any sense of the word. I would take 1 nuclear power plant over 50 state-size wind farms any day.

---

I will not argue that nuclear power is much more efficient than wind power in terms of space and maintenance vs. power output, but that doesn't necessarily rule it out as a viable alternative to coal and oil. It IS possible to cover parts of a country's power production with wind turbines.

Having watched that video, it seems like the guy against nuclear basically put up an argument as for why we should use renewable energy sources instead of nuclear.
The guy for mostly showed why nuclear was a good energy source. No wonder he lost supporters.
That said, they couldn't convince me nuclear is bad. We probably need a mix of both since they have disadvantages at this point, but I strongly believe that nuclear is a good energy source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

3. They are not fun to live around - the shadows created by the turning of the blades can get very annoying fast.

---

:p Could not be half as annoying as vehicular traffic, which we all seem to have comfortably adapted to.

I'd prefer either of these to coal, but I'll admit that I would not raise a family near a nuclear station. I suppose that means it would be hypocritical for me to support them in most cases, altho I don't see why they couldn't simply be located in isolated areas.

Of course, that would be like an admission they are a little dangerous, but we do need energy.

Vis. wind power, I was once involved in a project selling these in the Leeward Islands*, where there are a lot of small islands with a few thousand people living on them that still use small diesel generators as their only electricity. Those things are really annoying.

What I thought was interesting from that experience is that you could build a single windmill for $500 000 that would power 250 average North American households, and it would then require <$100 000/year to maintain, with a 20-30 year lifespan. That's an investment of $2000 each and then $400 per year for electricity.**

Unfortunately, I think energy regulation here favours big suppliers and makes it more or less impossible for communities to consider small scale implementations like that.

* technically it was to sell them to the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, but they (perhaps wisely) did not go for it because of worries about hurricanes.

** this page:
How much do wind turbines cost? | Windustry
claims "The costs for a commercial scale wind turbine in 2007 ranged from $1.2 million to $2.6 million, per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Wiki answers claims the average US home uses 10,000 kw/year or an average of a little over 1kw/hour. So a 1 MW turbine at $1 000 000 would be enough for 1000 homes, which is means they could have nearly free, green energy for say at least a decade or so for $1000 each.

The nuclear power plant I'm speaking of has so much wildlife living around it and has some of the biggest bucks in the state since the land is usually closed. Once in a while it opens up for hunters and then you hear about huge deer being brought in. After 9/11 the area was not opened for hunting and I'm not sure if it has changed yet.

But quite honestly I used to deliver food to the place prior to 9/11 and about the most you would hear was the gentle humming of the various systems working. All in all, without the waste and where it is stored, it has almost no environmental impact and quietly hums along while deer, squirrels, fish, and the like go about their merry way. I'm all for nuclear as long as the waste issue can be resolved or diminished somewhat.

I'm not for wind power at all b/c I've seen them firsthand and like others here who have as well I think they are a massive eyesore and require too much land and maintenance to be a 100% viable replacement for coal and oil. Putting them in the ocean is also not a solution. The maintenance factor for these behemoths is huge. The only reason we are seeing so much about wind power is that GE seea a way to make more money with their turbines and one of the world's millionaires has invested heavily in it. The solution has been there for almost 10 years and only now we are hearing about it a lot b/c these two 'firms' just want to make money. It is not a viable replacement for what we have but it may be a viable 'supplement' for other types of energy such as nuclear. However, it is my feeling that once the waste issue is resolved or diminished it will be more cost effective to build more nuclear power plants and thus the 'attractiveness' for building very expensive wind farms which produce far less energy than nuclear plants will be gone. I just do not see it happening. Why build 10 wind farms when you can build 1 nuclear plant that will put out more energy than 100 wind farms and at about the same price?

They are also working on cleaner burning coal which would be nice. Coal is in abundance on the earth and there is enough of it to power the earth for a long long time if we could solve the pollution impact. It certainly is not as bad as the news makes it sound b/c the state capital where I used to live also had a coal-fired power plant. The pollution is pure white and not the black sooty stuff you used to see in the old movies from the 50's. I'm assuming most of the pollutants are caught by the scrubbers. It is against federal law to eject more pollution into the air than is allowed and the amount allowed is quite ridiculous. So all of this carbon emissions crap is a load of crap for the gov't to profit off of it. We already have regulations - they are setup by the environmental protection agency. Also if equipment like scrubbers or anything else is not safe then OSHA can step in and demand maintenance and so forth.

A word about production:
I've worked in several factories that had stacks and for the most part the ejecta was steam. Several of the factories I worked at used steam in abundance to power the various systems. Steam is readily available at most places b/c of the production processes that produce a lot of heat. Also factories usually heat their buildings with this steam in the colder months and most do not have air conditioning or HVAC systems in the hotter months. It is almost impossible to cool such a large area and so most do not attempt to do it.

Quote:

---

I would not raise a family near a nuclear station.

---

The beauty of nuclear stations is that you don't have to. They are normally situated far outside of town and cannot be seen from the town or city. They can only be built in heavy industry zoned areas and no town planner would ever put that right next to a neighborhood. Haven't any of you played SimCity 3000? :)

Ah, but from what I understand, this global warming is a myth. I wonder if I have that paper still around so I could find the sources.
Heh, anyway, let's not assume anything about global warming. Reducing it might be a good idea, but we never know.

Quote:

---

Ah, but from what I understand, this global warming is a myth. I wonder if I have that paper still around so I could find the sources.

---

Man-made global warming is what is in question. The earth goes through several cycles of hotter and cooler periods. I believe scientists felt that we were coming out of a long cooling period but the recent solar cycle just ended as well which could explain the ridiculous winters we have been seeing. It is no longer convenient to call it global warming so they have called it climate change which is equally as absurd. But if you are referring to man made global warming that discussion is now called climate change. The term global warming now refers to other forces that could cause warming that are not necessarily man-made.

But yes we have seen the alarmist ideas dwindle a bit and it is probably b/c the recent weather patterns do not reflect any of the claims they make. However, alarmists, doomsdayers, and wackos aside it is still a good idea to pursue other alternative ideas for energy production. We definitely need to find a source of energy that gives us more 'bang for the buck'. We need better systems to power the world and our spacecraft if we hope to move into the future. Wouldn't it be nice if we could stick a fusion reactor on a spacecraft and use it to power the thing? Imagine if it's bi-product was something that the spacecraft actually needed. Quite possibly the perfect power source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo1

Place them at sea - 4/5 solved.

---

How? And how could they be maintained?

Quote:

---

I bet most people wouldn't enjoy living next to a nuclear power plant either.

---

I wouldn't definitely. But would eventually get used to it. Much like living near a volcano, or in a earthquake active region.

Quote:

---

I will not argue that nuclear power is much more efficient than wind power in terms of space and maintenance vs. power output, but that doesn't necessarily rule it out as a viable alternative to coal and oil.

---

Well, I think it IS definitely a much better alternative to coal and oil. Even to dams, which forever deface a region topography especially upstream and have destroyed more ecosystems than we can count. The fact nuclear power is constantly being deigned as an evil power source is one of the greatest tragedies. Because of that, oil, coal and dams still "rule" the world, with all the problems that brings.

It's quite sad, almost irritating, that the only power source truly capable of competing with these already 200 year old power sources is largely ignored by our societies who entertain themselves arguing over probably outcomes and potential dangers, when the right-now incidents and right-now consequences of the current energy sources are largely ignored.

Instead we prefer to do nothing. Keep destroying our ecosystems and pollute our air, while discussing windmills and crops as alternatives. We are pathetic.

The 'evil' nuclear persona has been put there by news agencies who don't know anything about it. Three Mile Island was indeed a close call but I hope people realize that there are reactors working around the world right now and have been working for almost two decades with almost no incidents. For the most part we have nuclear power figured out. They are now attempting to deal with the waste issue. This is the main reason no new nuclear power plants have been built in the USA.

Chernobyl would not happen again and would have never happened in a properly designed power plant. I'm not sure the specs for these beasts can be obtained now after 9/11 but for those who have worked on or near these plants they, too, realize that most reactors are encased in an almost impenetrable shell.

Everyone should be made to tick a box on their energy contract which states their preference for where the energy comes from.

So on a still december night when there is neither wind nor sun, and the power goes off - they can rue on their choices, and throw another evironmentalist on the fire.
Some literal cold reality may make them change their tune, when they realise their fantasy world DOESN'T BLOODY WORK.


France seems to have figured it out.
Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> What I thought was interesting from that experience is that you could build a single windmill for $500 000 that would power 250 average North American households
Infoplease.com
So accordingly, for 116,000,000 housholds, you would need about 0.5 million of the damn things.
Placing 5 every square km, and you carpet Kentucky.
And that's just domestic use, what about industrial use as well - what then? Carpet Texas maybe?

A few hundred scattered here or there are just a wet dream for the environmentalists. Their usefulness to anyone is basically zero.

Deployed on an industrial scale, other problems would no doubt emerge.

Yes, I'm talking about the bleaters' use of the word "free" energy.
Well it isn't free.

Do you think that taking Tera-Watts of power out of the atmosphere (in terms of wind momentum) would have ZERO impact on weather patterns?

If the average speed of your rain patterns decrease, then one area is going to get flooded more often, and another area up-wind is going to experience drought more often.
Oops - replaced one atmospheric distubance (CO2) with another (turbine carpets) - that's real smooth :rolleyes:


I'm sure they would counter that it's only a tiny fraction of a percent of the total energy in the atmostphere to begin with. This may be true, but then the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only a tiny fraction of a percent, but that doesn't stop them raising taxes and spreading FUD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The 'evil' nuclear persona has been put there by news agencies who don't know anything about it. Three Mile Island was indeed a close call but I hope people realize that there are reactors working around the world right now and have been working for almost two decades with almost no incidents.

---

Communities near older reactors in NY state (eg, Indian Point) still have cancer rates 50-100% higher than national averages, which they did not have this before they had reactors.

And I have seen too many lies made by energy companies (eg BP) about their "saftey standards" to believe they could possibly ever be responsible enough to honestly deal with those problems, which is why I said I would never live near one for any prolonged period of time, or have children there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salem

A few hundred scattered here or there are just a wet dream for the environmentalists. Their usefulness to anyone is basically zero.

---

This is the problem. People see green energy, saving the planet, etc, as a "leftist" thing, therefore as a good right winger you must engage in pollution with zeal. The worse your activities are for the planet, the better a conservative you are (kind of a sad ironic joke).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The beauty of nuclear stations is that you don't have to. They are normally situated far outside of town and cannot be seen from the town or city. They can only be built in heavy industry zoned areas and no town planner would ever put that right next to a neighborhood. Haven't any of you played SimCity 3000? :)

---

Ah but this holds true with wind turbines as well then doesn't it?

Wind turbines require maintenance, as does almost everything man made. What makes you think that wind turbines at sea would require so much maintenance that they would be pointless though? That is not the case.
Also after watching the debate, i wonder where the pro-nuclear guy got his information regarding the danish power grid, i've never heard of any such problems whatsoever? I wonder if he got his information from the CEPOS Report?

And if my memory serves me right, wind turbines would also ruin a neighborhood in Simcity 3K :)

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario

How? And how could they be maintained?

---

Don't ask me, ask the maintenance workers and engineers. This isn't some fantasy you know, it's real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario

I wouldn't definitely. But would eventually get used to it. Much like living near a volcano, or in a earthquake active region.

---

Or perhaps like living near a wind turbine ;-)

Edit2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salem

Their usefulness to anyone is basically zero.

---

This is simply not true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

1/4th of the power running my computer as i type is from wind. I would say that is quite useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo1

Don't ask me, ask the maintenance workers and engineers. This isn't some fantasy you know, it's real.

---

Right. That only serves to give a hard on to the type of environmentalist that gets them from such *cruel* images.

But we are talking here about real energy production to large cities. Not Kodak moments sponsored by governments to grab the votes of the environmentalists.

So, again how exactly do you plan to plant, say half a million of those on the sea? And how expensive will that become in Kw/h considering the no doubt very high installation, maintenance and energy transportation costs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The only reason we are seeing so much about wind power is that GE seea a way to make more money with their turbines and one of the world's millionaires has invested heavily in it.

---

There's far more financial incentive behind Nuclea Energy
than there is in Wind. It's in everything from the mining of
raw resources (by the way, mining uranium has led to a
whole mess of human rights issues) to disposing of the
waste.

I live in Utah, where a lot of Nuclear Waste is, or will be
placed. There's a company here, EnergySolutions, that
pulls in a half-billion dollars / year in revenue disposing
of Nuclear Waste. And there's not even a whole lot to
dispose of right now. Imagine how much potential money
could be made if the country were to embrace Nuclear
Power as the de facto standard of energy production?

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.

Quote:

---

It certainly is not as bad as the news makes it sound b/c the state capital where I used to live also had a coal-fired power plant. The pollution is pure white and not the black sooty stuff you used to see in the old movies from the 50's.

---

It's actually much, much worse that what the media is
conveying. The "pure white" is Co2. That's the biggest
problem we're facing. And the reason why it is a problem
is because Co2 is transparent to visible light, but blocks
infrared light (heat). So after the sunbeams have hit the
Earth and reflect back as heat, that heat becomes
trapped in the troposphere.

People have some problem accepting Global Warming
as a threat, when it's an extremely logical conclusion that
requires only a basic knowledge of physics & chemistry.

These people say that a100 years of documented
temperatures aren't enough to infer that Global Warming
is taking place. They will also say that the Earth has
experienced periods of higher and lower average
temperatures. Both of which are absolutely true.

But when you put so much Co2 into the atmosphere, and
when Co2 has been scientifically proven to absorb and
emit infrared light (heat) the logical conclusion is that
the more Co2 you put into the air, the less heat will be
able to escape.

Because of Co2, permafrost is melting. When permafrost
melts, it releases methane (this is in addition to all the
other sources of methane released) into the atmosphere.
Methane, like Co2, also absorbs and emits infrared heat;
only it's much more potent than Co2.

Anyway, that creates positive feedback. Eventually we
won't be able to do anything about it. It'll become a runaway
greenhouse effect and Earth will turn into Venus. The
situation is far worse than what the media is saying.

The problem isn't even the temperatures themselves; it's the
rate of change.

Quote:

---

I'm assuming most of the pollutants are caught by the scrubbers.

---

The thing is, the dirty particles that have been emitted into
the atmosphere have actually been masking the true effects
of Global Warming. Each particle attracts water molecules, which,
when in the atmosphere, reflect the sunlight away from the
planet before it has a chance to become radiated heat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But we are talking here about real energy production to large cities. Not Kodak moments sponsored by governments to grab the votes of the environmentalists.

---

As Neo1 says, Denmark (pop 6 million) gets 25%+ of it's electricity from WIND POWER and has for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

It is no longer convenient to call it global warming so they have called it climate change which is equally as absurd. But if you are referring to man made global warming that discussion is now called climate change. The term global warming now refers to other forces that could cause warming that are not necessarily man-made.

---

Global Warming and Climate Change are both still used; and
they're both accurate. Global Warming refers to the increase
in average temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse
gases; where as Climate Change is more broad and includes
other effects of greenhouse gas emissions; such as changes
in precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, etc.

They're not in contradiction to each other at all; and one hasn't
been replaced with another. It's really just semantics.

Not to mention the lifespan of a Nuclear Power plant is
only about 30 years before it needs to be decommissioned
another another one needs to be built. That's expensive
itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Right. That only serves to give a hard on to the type of environmentalist that gets them from such *cruel* images.

But we are talking here about real energy production to large cities. Not Kodak moments sponsored by governments to grab the votes of the environmentalists.

So, again how exactly do you plan to plant, say half a million of those on the sea? And how expensive will that become in Kw/h considering the no doubt very high installation, maintenance and energy transportation costs?

---

Kodak Moments? Call it what you want.

Installation costs are lower for offshore windmills than for regular onshore windmills. The parts can be transported on barges on the water which is way cheaper than transporting them on land. Offshore windmills are usually not installed on a depth of more than 15m so the concrete base doesn't need to be much larger than the onshore counterparts. Also, because water is inherently flat, windspeeds are usually double the windspeed on land at 50ms altitude. So there is much more energy to be harnessed.

Also why would the "energy transportation" be any more expensive? Power cables don't care whether they are on the bottom of the ocean or 30ms in the air over land? That is non-sense?

The Canadians are building a 4400MW Offshore windmill park as we speak, is that insignificant? Is that a Kodak Moment? The British are planning an offshore park of around 1000MW with 341 millsl. The largest offshore park at this time is in Esbjerg, Denmark, at 209MW.

This is not my opinion or some other subjective matter which is up for debate, large scale offshore windmill parks are not only feasible they are also real and very much in existence. As you mentioned yourself, it's simply a matter of getting to work. There is plenty of water, and there is plenty of wind, now we only need initiative. It seems to me most of you in here are lacking in that department.

It's hard to argue with numbers. Not because they are always right. But because we tend to look at numbers and expect them to be proof of concept. They aren't.

The thing is that wind power is not efficient enough. It's expensive and its presently serving one (let me repeat that, ONE) patent. My hat to Kuriant (if memory serves me right). It is more or less working for small countries with small populations. But, its disheartening to witness that these large and expensive wind farms go up to no more than 20% of these countries static electricity production. So what you have is large investments, an ugly scenery and no more power that your mid size dam. And that's when you have wind. Because when you don't, you might as well put your clothes to dry on those huge motionless fans.

Portugal has 10 million inhabitants. Currently something like 15% of our homegrown production comes from the wind. But our own energy production is still only 40% of what we actually use. So, we have lots of windmills and no real gain. No wonder our government decided to start again building dams.

So yeah. I'm pro nuclear power. It's comparatively much cheaper, incomparably less damaging to the environment if you don't make too many of those and start having problems disposing of the waste, and a lot more efficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It is more or less working for small countries with small populations. But, its disheartening to witness that these large and expensive wind farms go up to no more than 20% of these countries static electricity production. So what you have is large investments, an ugly scenery and no more power that your mid size dam. And that's when you have wind. Because when you don't, you might as well put your clothes to dry on those huge motionless fans.

---

Until large scale power storage is feasible and possible, wind turbines will never fully replace any of the alternatives, for the very reason you mention. (And by that time, fusion or some other miracle has most likely obsoleted wind power entirely.)

The 20% are on the way up, in 2001 it was 12%, in 2005 it was 18%, now it is 24%. The current government has promised that by 2020 it will be at least 30%, that is no guarantee whatsoever but right now i don't see any reason why the production of wind turbines would grind to a halt, so they will probably end up being right. In my eyes, the more of our power needs we can cover by harnessing the wind - the better!

Quote:

---

So yeah. I'm pro nuclear power. It's comparatively much cheaper, incomparably less damaging to the environment if you don't make too many of those and start having problems disposing of the waste, and a lot more efficient.

---

I fail to understand how it is less damaging to the environment? The only real way to handle the nuclear waste is to make a concrete coffin or bury it deep underground, hardly a sustainable solution, and not very environmentally friendly either i'd say?

How is a wind turbine damaging to the environment? There have been reports of bird population thinning out because they fly into the wings (of the mill), that's about the only real environmental hazard i can think of. There is no smoke, there is no waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo1

How is a wind turbine damaging to the environment?

---

Let's not forget for one moment that you completely change the landscape. The scenery is just awful. I don't know about you, but an array of those things has to me the exact same visual impact of electricity towers.

As for the rest. Well, we had bush and trees cut down to make way to the turbines. We had an entire population of storks being displaced in southern Alentejo. The deforestation also dispersed animals and had an impact on the population of birds of prey in Algarve. Moving these things to the sea will be no less problematic. It may remove the direct impact on the ecosystem (not all countries have vast expanses of desert), but will make this energy source even more expensive.

Quote:

---

I fail to understand how it is less damaging to the environment? The only real way to handle the nuclear waste is to make a concrete coffin or bury it deep underground, hardly a sustainable solution, and not very environmentally friendly either i'd say?

---

Yet it pollutes less than oil and coal, since you produce less waste per Kw. The problem some countries are facing with nuclear waste disposal has to do, IMHO, with them making too many nuclear plants.

Nuclear its not without its problems. I don't dare say otherwise. But if done with moderation it can both increase a country energy production levels and cut down electricity bills without nuclear waste being a difficult problem to deal with. Too many plants... well, that's the other side of the coin. So don't do it. Get your remaining energy from other sources.

Quote:

---

As for the rest. Well, we had bush and trees cut down to make way to the turbines. We had an entire population of storks being displaced in southern Alentejo. The deforestation also dispersed animals and had an impact on the population of birds of prey in Algarve. Moving these things to the sea will be no less problematic. It may remove the direct impact on the ecosystem (not all countries have vast expanses of desert), but will make this energy source even more expensive.

---

Do you actually have a source about deforestation as a result
of building wind turbines? I find that hard to believe as the
entire purpose of wind turbines is to curtail co2 emissions.
Removing natural co2 users seems counterproductive to that
goal.

No. I don't have a source. Nor I care to look for one.

Because it didn't happen and it's a ridiculous assertion that
has no basis in fact or even logic. You should just delete that
paragraph as it's bound to confuse folk. Actually, don't do that.
I'll attempt to restore some balance by criticizing Nuclear Power
through exaggeration:

Nuclear Power plants will gave my uncle Jimmy 15 tumors
in his face.

Oh neat check out what I just read. Flying wind turbines, man!
Screw Fusion. This is the future! The potential pretty much
removes all the criticisms of the impacts on land (which aren't
even that drastic in the first place).

Airborne Wind Turbines Lift Off : Discovery News

Quote:

---

At high altitudes, global winds have an estimated potential of 800 terawatts

---

That's way, way more than what the entire planet's population
uses (which is about 15 terawatts). Even if you're only able
to harness, at max, 10% of the potential wind energy, it's still
more than enough to satisfy the wants of the population.

Renewable energy methods seem to be improving faster than
other sources. The biggest problem with Nuclear is that it pulls
attention and money away from cleaner, safer alternatives.

Nuclear just isn't necessary and the only reason it's advocated
so much is that bigger industry can be built around it and more
revenue can be generated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ethic

Because it didn't happen and it's a ridiculous assertion that
has no basis in fact or even logic. You should just delete that
paragraph as it's bound to confuse folk. Actually, don't do that.
I'll attempt to restore some balance by criticizing Nuclear Power
through exaggeration.

---

I'm not even caring.

The newer nuclear reactors can run around 100 years off the same nuclear fuel. How's that for efficiency? The future of nuclear is here. So yes, I'm all pro-nuclear and less renewable. They're just not so profitable at the moment. More research is needed for them to be a viable alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Let's not forget for one moment that you completely change the landscape. The scenery is just awful. I don't know about you, but an array of those things has to me the exact same visual impact of electricity towers.

As for the rest. Well, we had bush and trees cut down to make way to the turbines. We had an entire population of storks being displaced in southern Alentejo. The deforestation also dispersed animals and had an impact on the population of birds of prey in Algarve. Moving these things to the sea will be no less problematic. It may remove the direct impact on the ecosystem (not all countries have vast expanses of desert), but will make this energy source even more expensive.

---

Construction is less expensive than on land, unless they are built in very deep water. Energy transportation is the exact same cost as with land based turbines, so the only thing that will be more expensive is maintenance, since obviously you have to sail to get access to the mills, rather than drive. Siemens has worked out a solution for the upcoming british offshore park, by placing a maintenance station at the park site, which is manned 24/7, this cuts costs however it will still not be nearly as cheap as maintaining onshore wind turbines, i will give you that.

However one of the advantages of wind turbines is that they are unmanned, they run on their own and require no attention unless they stop working (ie maintenance). A nuclear power plant employs a lot of people constantly. There is ofcourse a difference largely in favor of nuclear since you only require one plant to feed a small country with power, so in essence it boils down to higher maintenance costs vs. dealing with nuclear waste (and the problems inherent in that).

Onshore turbines which are not placed in some kind of barren landscape can be problematic at times, that is correct, as i said they are bird killers. Also some have experienced _very_ large chunks of ice being thrown of the mill-wings at _very_ high speeds in the winter, not so fortunate if the turbine is close to humans, a 300 kilo chunk of ice moving at 160 kmh will completely wreck a house....or a face :P

Then there is the NIMBY factor and the nuisance of living close to a wind turbine (flickering shadows and the noise among other things), these can be solved using the cooperative ownership model. On top of that it is just a matter of getting used to wind turbines being around, we got used to cars and streets and trains just as MK27 pointed out, also if we can get used to power lines that we have everywhere, why not turbines? What is the big difference? Do yo really want to choose the next type of worldwide power infrastructure based on aestethics?

Imo the least troublesome placement for turbines is in the water or in the desert, most countries have plenty of either one or the other. A turbine in the water has no environmental impact, and i'm sure the fishes don't mind :)

Edit:
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? It seems as if some politician was eager to get the green stamp of approval and just chose a spot on a map with a blindfold on? Are you sure this incident (plural?) is not the product of some stupid political spin or just bad descisions? I mean, you wouldn't place a nuclear power plant in the middle of a forest, and as you might have noticed, i didn't mention this in any of my posts either.
Turbines being placed in forests is not an argument against wind power, just as nuclear plants being placed in forests is not an argument against nuclear energy, those are just stupidity and nothing more.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :D

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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 :D, second largest one in the country), are you telling me it is all in my head?

Edit:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

---

It has been here for a long time. None of this tech is new and most was invented back in the 70's and 80's and some even before that. The only thing that pushed this to the forefront was the oil bubble that burst not long ago.

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.

Go play SimCity 3000. Expand your city to fill the map and then try to run it off of wind power. Granted it's just a game but it's still math driving the game.

Quote:

---

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"? :p) 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

I just find it strange that the right wing often seems determined to write-off ("right-off"? :p) 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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :p :p but at least they could still swim in the water safely.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

- 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 :D

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :D

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

The newer nuclear reactors can run around 100 years off the same nuclear fuel. How's that for efficiency? The future of nuclear is here. So yes, I'm all pro-nuclear and less renewable. They're just not so profitable at the moment. More research is needed for them to be a viable alternative.

---

A Nuclear Power Plant has an average life of about 30 years.
Newer plants are designed to have an expected life of about
40 - 60 years before they need to be decommissioned due
to embrittlement.

Quote:

---

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

---

But windmills never operate at 100% efficiency, more like 30-40%. So it all works out in the end I guess.
The REALLY big turbines are rated at 11MW, I think, so you'll get maybe 3 or 4 actual MW out of it, but there aren't many of those around.

Quote:

---

actually the only increase recently came when the government decided to privatize the energy providers, what do you know.

---

That's because private businesses have to break even. They can't just run up a massive debt like the nations of the world.

I guess if you're in it just for the sake of reducing CO2, then it's great. But if it was economically viable we'd all be driving electric cars and getting our energy from solar panels by now. The tech is there, has been there for quite some time, but the only thing actually keeping alternative energy in business is gov't subsidies (hence the 80% energy tax) and those simply aren't sustainable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Really, the turbines have an impact on the environment. Especially for birds. .

---

Everything has an impact on the environment. However,
the impact of turbines is far, far less than alternatives in
almost every measurable way.

As for your comment about, "especially for birds." That's
pretty much just spin that wind opponents like to use.
It's an exaggerated claim based on selective information.

Figures from past studies in which these people cite
were of farms which had 10+ year-old turbine designs.
These were fast-spinning turbines with blades that
had low surface area. In addition to that, these farms
were located within migratory pathways and other
areas in which there was a greater chance of collision.
Newer turbines have slower moving blades with large s
surface areas. Birds dodge these quite easily.

The average mortality rate of birds from Wind Turbines
is about 2.19 birds / turbine / year (these were studies
from almost a decade ago that were studying farms with
older turbine designs, by the way). The American Bird
Conservancy says that between 40,000 - 80,000 birds
may die as a result of turbine collisions per year. And
while that does seem high, one should actually put it
in perspective.

150 million birds die / year due to utility lines. About 60
million die from colliding with automobiles. Between 100
and 1 billion birds die / year just from crashing into
buildings. 40 million die from collisions with communication
towers. Bioicides ("pest"icides) kill another 60 million.

Bird mortality due to Turbines seems to be nothing more
than exaggerated spin by wind opponents. There's always
room for improvement; but I wouldn't consider the impact on
birds reason to oppose wind power at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

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.

---

See, you make assertions like that without any evidence to
support them. The School of Engineering and Applied Science
at Harvard says that by 2030, wind alone can meet all of
China's energy demands. It could replace all coal and other
fossil fuels. This the most populous country on the planet and
the second biggest consumer of energy (behind the United
States). This was the cover story to Science Magazine last
September.

That doesn't matter, because nobody is advocating wind
entirely by itself. But a infrastructure based on wind and
supplemented by other renewables such as geothermal,
hydro, solar, etc can definitely meet the needs of the energy
needs of the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernt

But windmills never operate at 100% efficiency, more like 30-40%. So it all works out in the end I guess.

---

True, but obviously all this is taken into account when installations are done (and nb, even "base power" plants do not operate at 100%). It does not change the fact that there are plenty of functional and productive windfarms and there could be many more. We will not meet all our needs this way, but it could significantly reduce "projected" dependence on nuclear power.

Quote:

---

That's because private businesses have to break even.

---

More likely it is because they must turn a profit in order to maintain a stable stock price, etc, which they need in order to raise operating and development capital. Which the government can cover with taxes. So you pay taxes to cover power, or you pay more to a private company, which is six and two threes. The "necessary" profit, of course, remains a pure leak -- you get nothing for that.

Quote:

---

I guess if you're in it just for the sake of reducing CO2, then it's great. But if it was economically viable we'd all be driving electric cars and getting our energy from solar panels by now. The tech is there, has been there for quite some time, but the only thing actually keeping alternative energy in business is gov't subsidies

---

Governments must subsidize nuclear facilities -- otherwise no one will build them. The baseline is still existing coal power, which is effectively subsidized by the government because they are allowed to extract what should be considered a public resource at extremely low cost. By selling off our resources at next to nothing to private companies,* they are 1) receiving a hidden subsidy, the same as if the government built them equipment and sold it at a loss, 2) keeping energy prices artificially low in order to discourage any alternative.

* eg, it will be interesting to see if it actually costs the government money in order to allow BP to drill in the gulf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

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.

---

My numbers were based on bernts speculations, and the total 3465MW output from 2009, where around 400MW is actually from offshore parks. We did not cover the country with wind turbines, as i said i can see one from where i am sitting if i turn my head, i don't mind, and 86% of my fellow countrymen don't mind either.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Privatizing DONG Energy was stupid, the entire COP15 was a farce, mostly everything else our current conservative/liberal government has been doing has either been cutting welfare or cutting taxes. So don't get me wrong, i do think that the increase in wind-power is brilliant, but i'm not overly positive about everything here.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Why is it criminal? I don't quite follow you i think.

Quote:

---

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

---

Sure, and it's financing everything around here?

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's climbing, we are up almost exactly 100.000 cars from 2007 to 2010. Yet we still have less than half as many cars as we have people. And considering ticket prices for bus and train are up by 75% since 2001 and the number of bus routes and on-time train departures are down by 20% and 9% since 2001, i think there is some pattern to all this. 2001 being the year that our current government won the election.

Looking at our neighbor Germany, where cars are dirt cheap, consider which is more CO2 friendly:
Changing cars once every 3-4 years, usually very big and heavy cars such as German saloons since they are cheap.
-or-
Using the same car for 15 years, usually small japanese cars since they are the only affordable ones.

Sure, we have alot of cars from 1987 that only do about 10-12 km/l, and i do agree that the current system with a static tax percent needs to be changed (to favor efficient and safe cars, while punishing Hummers and Porsches), our current system is still actually prefferable imo.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Nono they are liberals, they don't do tax raising, it's not their thing. They are trying to save money to get us back on track, by cutting child support checks and our national retirement support. The opposition, the socialists have made deals with the unions to increase the avg. work-time with an hour a week to get everything back on track, and also they want to increase government spending for things like large construction projects. Also i don't know where the 85 million you speak of comes from, they need to find 24 billion kroner, not that it helps :-)

Even if it were 85 million that looks like 10-20 kr a head, which is lunch money for most people in Denmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Even if it were 85 million that looks like 10-20 kr a head, which is lunch money for most people in Denmark.

---

No unfortunately it is not just 85 million, it is 24 billion, significant difference there. The government lowered the tax on the top of the economic curve, despite warnings. And now, in the recession, we owe alot of money.

Quote:

---

The School of Engineering and Applied Science
at Harvard says that by 2030, wind alone can meet all of
China's energy demands.

---

Sorry, I don't but that. China is going through it's industrial revolution right now and in 20 years or so they will be about where we were in the 60's and 70's with even more demand for power.

But again go invest in it if you believe so strongly about it.