Shock new report: nuclear power station possible sites named

Clippo · 25-05-2007, 08:24 PM

Britannist wrote:-

Quote:

We do have the nuclear expertise to build the new nuclear power stations ourselves. Claims in certain newspapers that we do not have were speculation.

Britannist, no tricks, rudeness or snide inferences intended but could you verify your statement above. I’ve said before that I don’t believe everything written in the papers but so far I’ve found Charles Glover's views reliable and it is a subject that I’m very interested in.

Rich C wrote:-

Quote:

I'd rather have a nuclear power station near my home than a fossil burner deploying soot and ash (some of which can be radioactive btw) directly into the environment or having to see/hear a wind farm every time I look out my window.

Hear! hear!

I haven’t verified the following statements :-

Quote:

The Chernobyl accident put as much radiation into the environment as an equally-sized coal-fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months.

Quote:

Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear power plant?

But they may be deducible from here

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/.../coalmain.html

Britannist · 25-05-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

Quote:

wind turbines either turn to quickly to produce electricity

Any evidence of that?

It is a fact which has been confirmed by a number of campaigners against these ugly wind turbines.

Among those who say (correctly) that wind turbines do not work when the wind is very strong are Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker and Professor David Bellamy (the well-known television personality).

mkpdavies · 25-05-2007, 08:47 PM

http://www.lioffshorewindenergy.org/...6...#windspeed

Quote:

What happens when winds are too strong / too weak?

The turbine will start spinning at around 7mph, and when the winds become too strong, around 55mph, the turbine will apply brakes to the rotor and, depending on the manufacturer, some will pitch the blades so that they lose their aerodynamic properties and stop spinning.

Besoeker · 25-05-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blank_frackis

Besoeker is correct, you're obviously referring to rated capacity, they only produce their rated capacity about 30% of the time, but that doesn't mean they only generate electricity 30% of the time. It's an easy mistake to make.

Thank you kindly B_F.
Not sure that the point was either understood or accepted though.

Besoeker · 25-05-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

http://www.lioffshorewindenergy.org/turbine_faqs.html?9fe95c5d98a1dafa8354b93dbfec1434 =6ae81f14084154b3917626b0cd6...#windspeed

Quote:

What happens when winds are too strong / too weak?

The turbine will start spinning at around 7mph, and when the winds become too strong, around 55mph, the turbine will apply brakes to the rotor and, depending on the manufacturer, some will pitch the blades so that they lose their aerodynamic properties and stop spinning.

Nice find.
Anywhere from 7mph to 55mph.
In other words, most wind conditions?
You have posted a pro wind turbine site.
Are you pro wind turbines?

TonyG · 25-05-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

Quote:

wind turbines either turn to quickly to produce electricity

Any evidence of that?

It is a fact which has been confirmed by a number of campaigners against these ugly wind turbines.

Among those who say (correctly) that wind turbines do not work when the wind is very strong are Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker and Professor David Bellamy (the well-known television personality).

I didn't think that there would be any evidence to back up that comment.
It is straightforward, turn the blades into the wind to slip them into neutral, or change the gearing to slow them, or brake them.
It is pretty obvious that turning too fast could be dangerous, but not to produce any electricity while doing so? Nonsensical.

mkpdavies · 25-05-2007, 09:47 PM

[quote="Besoeker"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Are you pro wind turbines?

Not really no. If/when they become much cheaper and if they become more efficient, then maybe they can contribute something.

TonyG · 25-05-2007, 09:52 PM

It is nice to get facts right though, rather than repeating third-hand gossip.

mkpdavies · 25-05-2007, 09:59 PM

Here is one of my favorite sites

http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerleve...nt=CostBenefit

Quote:

Here's a cost-benefit analysis for a relatively small windplant with sixty-six 2.5 MW turbines for a combined rated capacity of 140 MWs. Each turbine will stand about 430 feet tall and will require around 15 acres of cleared land and infrastructure support. Spaced eight to a mile, the array would extend for over seven miles. With a generous capacity factor of 30 percent, this facility might contribute 42 MWs of electricity annually to the PJM grid, .000026 percent of the grid's annual production of 163,000 MWs—an amount that would be engulfed in the first minutes of our increasing demand for electricity (at two percent per year). If this power were generated by coal or nuclear, with capacity factors approaching 90 percent and with a predictable and constant stream of energy, it would service about 30,000 homes. However, because of the intermittent, unpredictable nature of wind, no homes would be powered by the wind industry. Given this limitation and the fact that industrial electricity must be consumed immediately, wind can generate only energy, not capacity, to the electricity grid.

Because of federal and state subsidies to the wind industry, corporate investors should expect:

$15 million annually from the sale of electricity, given state laws requiring utilities to purchase "green" energy at prices beyond competitive rates. The wind industry will likely charge utilities at least five cents per kW hour—twice the cost of coal. This cost will ultimately be borne by ratepayers.
Over $200 million leveraged over the ten year life of the wind industry's Congressional production tax credits, currently at 1.9 cents per kW hour. Since production tax credits will result in a deficit to the federal treasury, this loss will have to be made up by taxpayers.
Equity investors such as AES and Florida Power and Light will have access to wind's double declining capital depreciation schedule, paying off the capital costs totaling about $140 million in little more than five years. Altogether, publicly funded tax avoidance schemes reimburse wind developers as much as two-thirds of the capital costs of each wind turbine.
The wind company might employ three or four maintenance employees at a salary of about $18,500, with no additional benefits and no guarantee they would be county or state residents. Its contracts with property owners offer unsecured promises of a few thousand dollars per year. Its promises about adding millions of dollars annually to the local public treasury often often spurious public relations gestures, since the company can afford to retain accountants with a sophisticated knowledge of energy tax law who will find ways to offset any perceived tax obligation, as has happened with windplants in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Jon Boone Oakland, MD

So as things stand, it looks like the recycling "industry" to me. A whole lot of subsidy, for not a lot of real benefit.

25-05-2007, 09:52 PM	#48 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	It is nice to get facts right though, rather than repeating third-hand gossip. __________________ If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you? ---- http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode