Nuclear is also a natural product - one point in the article is to attempt to remove the stigma nuclear appears to have on public perception. I agree that in principle, but as a domestic solution, we do no have this as a natural resource (pitchblende) so in that case we are still at the mercy of the supply from other countries.Originally Posted by Advent
We are "they"
Reducing the bias you refer to in the math by 50% still give 73,348 acres, some 18.34 times the area needed for nuclear. Even if the argument holds that wind farms can be built on land that nuclear plants cannot be, the transmission problem would provide such inefficiency to make the wind generation futile as a primary source.Why bother, though? He's not talking about the costs or risks of generation, he's talking only about the land requirement. On that subject, one minor point would be that nobody is going to build an offshore nuclear station, and another is that he's not bothering to factor in any infrastructure for the nuclear plant.Ideological bias doesn't mean he is wrong on the facts!Oh, please, not Larouche stuff. It's got an ideological bias so thick you could spread it on your bread.
Analyse his arithmetic and tell us where (if anywhere) he has got it wrong please...
However, my objection really is based on the inherent bias of Larouche publications, and "checking the maths" isn't going to catch that all the time. If you have a bias against wind, for example, you can choose the lowest estimate of the possible generation range, and the highest end of the separation necessary between turbines. Your maths is fine, but you'll get a completely different figure from someone with a pro-wind bias who chooses the highest generation estimate and the lowest separation.
I don't have an objection to nuclear plants, and I'd certainly prefer to see them than new fossil fuel plants - but it isn't a case of "renewables or nuclear", or at least it shouldn't be. It should simply be a case of "anything but fossil fuel".
I agree with the basis of "anything but fossil fuel" but a lot of argument is spent considering the ways to generate energy when, arguably, the bigger problem is storage. While various solar technologies have improved significantly in terms of incident photon conversion efficiencies, secondary battery technology has not really progressed at the same rate in terms of the number of charge cycles capable. Perhaps there is more sanity in using wind to power hydrogen conversion, at least it is compressible and can be stored. In addition we have plenty of feedstock this summer of a key ingredient - water!
We are "they"
Sure - it's more of a "so what?", though, in that we're not short on windy land (or shallow sea, either). If we compare wind and nuclear on the risk of catastrophic meltdown or radiation, we're going to find that wind comes out well ahead. If we decide the matter on bird deaths, we're back to nuclear.Reducing the bias you refer to in the math by 50% still give 73,348 acres, some 18.34 times the area needed for nuclear. Even if the argument holds that wind farms can be built on land that nuclear plants cannot be, the transmission problem would provide such inefficiency to make the wind generation futile as a primary source.Why bother, though? He's not talking about the costs or risks of generation, he's talking only about the land requirement. On that subject, one minor point would be that nobody is going to build an offshore nuclear station, and another is that he's not bothering to factor in any infrastructure for the nuclear plant.Ideological bias doesn't mean he is wrong on the facts!Oh, please, not Larouche stuff. It's got an ideological bias so thick you could spread it on your bread.
Analyse his arithmetic and tell us where (if anywhere) he has got it wrong please...
However, my objection really is based on the inherent bias of Larouche publications, and "checking the maths" isn't going to catch that all the time. If you have a bias against wind, for example, you can choose the lowest estimate of the possible generation range, and the highest end of the separation necessary between turbines. Your maths is fine, but you'll get a completely different figure from someone with a pro-wind bias who chooses the highest generation estimate and the lowest separation.
I don't have an objection to nuclear plants, and I'd certainly prefer to see them than new fossil fuel plants - but it isn't a case of "renewables or nuclear", or at least it shouldn't be. It should simply be a case of "anything but fossil fuel".
You could say, if you like, that I don't fault the maths he's done, but the maths he's chosen to do.
There you have your finger on one of the major problems with all electricity grids - virtually no storage capacity. What other major utility system has no storage capacity?
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Tidal wave.
Will German, French or Dutch inscribe the epitaph of Emmet?
When we have sold enough of Ireland to be but strangers in it.
- Luke Kelly
We have a minimal amount of fossil fuel at our disposal and we are at the end of the line from Siberia. We need to consider urgently, alternative types of energy and nuclear should be at the top of that list. The tree huggers need to get over their objection to windmills as will the surfers and whale watchers have to get over the inconvenience of tidal and offshore wind farms. I can't see that large scale solar is viable in this country, however, I think the government should insist that all houses are built to the highest insulation standards and I think solar water heating panels should be made mandatory on all new houses.
There's a lot to be said for the fellow who doesn't say it himself. -- Maurice Switzer
Positivity Rating: 57 (Surplus of Likes Received over Likes Given)
It's simple! Wind turbines are useless as a source of energy as they have to be backed up at all times by fossil fueled C02 power stations due to their lousy proven efficiency, 20 to 20% at most as the wind blows only some of the time. To make matters worse they are hugely subsidised, in the UK alone each environmentally destroying monstrosity of a wind turbine is subsidised with £200,000 GBP quids worth of tax payers money (You know what, with careful investment I have made serious money from tax payers that have been ripped off subsidising these things all I need are the wingnut eco-mentalists to keep shouting "the end of oil" and other nonsense please)
Of course to meet all energy needs Ireland should have nuclear power stations. But you know what? With the Creationist zeal of the loony Greens like Eamo Ryan, (the oil license give away man) who are opposed to nuclear generation on non-scientific grounds, but happy to build an interconnector to use UK nuclear energy, we will in the future end up with the worst of both worlds, a useless bunch of joke re-newable energy Wind Turbines with 20% efficincey, a dreadful energy infrastructure whilst being backed up by Nuclear power!
..... and that concludes the opinion of the 12 year old WingNut jury!
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte
We have found an Irish solution to an Irish problem - we will buy Nuclear from Britain via the interconnector & sell them surplus power from our vast array of windmills, if we ever get them built. We appear to have a problem developing the large offshore windfarms which could make a meaningful contribution to our needs so we're going to spend millions adapting our distribution grid so all the cowboy speculators who brought us the unoccupied houses will build windfarms on every hill which can't be used for housing. The Greens save the planet & FF help their cronies.
At the moment there is 860 Megawatts of wind installed and our summertime daily demand is around 3000 MW. This is what today's wind produced ...
Over a year the production is closer to 50% than carguy's 20% above. Offshore might be closer to 70%, and there are now turbines which produce 7 MW. A lot of it is being followed here
You are making a simple mistake the overall average output of Wind Turbines over time is at best 20 to 25%!At the moment there is 860 Megawatts of wind installed and our summertime daily demand is around 3000 MW. This is what today's wind produced ...
Over a year the production is closer to 50% than carguy's 20% above. Offshore might be closer to 70%, and there are now turbines which produce 7 MW. A lot of it is being followed here
You may even get a few days of 100% wind generation but the average overall is a lousy 20 to 25% the result is that the joke wind turbine renewables must be backed up by fossil powered generators.
ESB engineers know this to be a fact, look at the best engineered wind turbine system in Europe in Denmark, and weep at how the Danes lose a fortune in taxpayers money whilst sometimes having 100% wind generation that they must export to their neighbours at a huge loss to Danish tax payers! It will be worse here in Ireland for Irish tax payers if hey are forced to subsidise these wind mill white elephants!
Wind Turbines are useless because of the fact that because of the unpredictable nature of wind, the running of back-up generators on fossil fuels (usually coal) is necessary, and this process becomes less efficient when operating in "spinning reserve" mode. Emissions from conventional power stations are minimised by reducing demand fluctuations and maximising the base load, this allowing the cleanest systems to predominate. However, unpredictable wind electricity imposes extra demand fluctuations on power stations, decreases base load, and thus raises emissions because the mix of power plant must change to provide more spinning reserve. Neither nuclear power nor gas (CHP) is technically suitable as spinning reserve to provide electricity at immediate notice, so the use of wind turbines tends to restrict the choice of back-up fuel to coal.
You argue that the introduction of wind electricity could remove the need for nuclear electricity. No way, the replacement of nuclear with wind electricity would actually increase carbon emissions, because of the need for fossil-fuelled back-up for wind-based generators to maintain a steady supply of electricity. As an example Denmark has to import its nuclear electricity as Ireland will from the UK if we build a multitude of wind farms.
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote