Bang Goes The Theory

[Financial Enviro]

I enjoyed this article:

Why Monbiot is wrong on nuclear power – II Cool the Earth

[Financial Enviro]

I fully expect a volly of responses, and seeing as tonight with the more I read I appear to be the only sane one in this debate, I think it is allowable to multi post my findings as they come. About that ITV programme someone watched:

KPMG refuses to publish controversial green energy report | Environment | guardian.co.uk

I don't mean to be rude - but the more I read and see - the more I realise I am the one who is right not to believe in nuclear. I'm glad I have found some like minded people out in the world!

[Lancashire Lad]

F.E.

I can easily dismiss the “10 big Myths” article as nonsense and could quite happily counter each and every one of Goodall’s quick fix answers to these so called myths. – But why would I bother?

Instead, I shall simply quote the final line of the article – the one line which for some inexplicable () reason you chose to leave out of your verbatim quote:-

QUOTE “Chris Goodall's new book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, is published by Profile books, priced £9.99” UNQUOTE.

There we have it. – He’s trying to sell a book. – So it might sell a few more copies if he crams into it everything that the “greenies” might want to hear. (Let’s face it, people who have knowledge of energy systems and the technologies involved aren’t going to be first in the bookshop queue!!!).

Can’t help myself. – I will comment on just one of the gems of wisdom from that article – relating to solar panels.
QUOTE “….the largest manufacturer of thin panels, claims that its products will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations by 2012”UNQUOTE.
It may have escaped your notice, but we are now in 2012. Solar panel efficiency is still around the 9% mark. Claims that the best are around 17-18% efficient will relate to the so called kWp (kilowatt peak) efficiency which is achieved only under optimal laboratory test conditions – and we all know that optimal conditions don’t occur during the night and when the sun isn’t shining! The only people rushing to build solar power generating systems hereabouts are those get rich quick firms cashing in on the 5MW capacity feed-In-Tariff subsidies. And they certainly aren’t spending their easily gotten gains on research and development.
(NB: I readily accept that solar water heating panels are far more efficient, and that they could conceivably be integrated into much larger scale installations at reasonably economical build cost in the not so distant future).

If the extent of your research lies within media programmes and popular press propaganda the likes of which you have quoted so far, you will never gain a proper and reasoned insight into the comparative economics of implementation, nor the reality of what each technology is and is not capable of. (Amply proven by shooting one’s self in the foot, as you have already demonstrated by quoting Goodall, who one minute slates nuclear, and the next minute is all for it).

You talk about people having pomposity and make accusations that some of us might be “rich, conservative land owning types” and then finish off by saying:-
QUOTE “all it needs is the money - and trust me it is there - it's just tied up in offshore accounts and people like Fred Goodwins' bank accounts” UNQUOTE.

I can let the pomposity accusation go, as I get fired up on this subject too, and sometimes the written word looks harsh when read back later on. As for the rich conservative land owning type – (well, certainly in my case), you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

You further comment that people’s objections to wind turbines are on the premise that they lower nearby property values. Get real! – There might be a few rich NIMBY’s who have such objections, but those of us who know what we are talking about object from the point of view that present policy is implementing far too many of them than the system can support without compromising security of baseload supply. Or, in order to avoid the inevitable power cuts which their level of implementation will bring, the need to build costly (and when used for that specific purpose very inefficient) gas fuelled back-up. Let alone that the wind turbines themselves are grossly inefficient and expensive in comparison to other available generating methods.

If you had read just a small fraction of the posts made on the subject, you would clearly see that those of us you accuse, all support fully cohesive energy policies – comprising of the most efficient generating technologies available for the area/country in question. Be that coal, gas, nuclear, wind, wave, tidal, or whatever, subsidised when necessary to an extent that would be appropriate without causing financial hardship to the poorest of consumers, and implemented in such proportions as to maintain security of supply at the most economic cost to the country concerned.

That approach would allow a structured method of reduction, and perhaps even the ultimate cessation of the use of fossil fuels within the electrical generating industry. – Ergo, given time, sustainability and environmentally friendly generation on the widest scale possible. – Which is, in my opinion, the most logical, reasonable, and rational way of going about things for the long term.

I stress again that such thinking should be adopted globally not just here in Britain. Each country might need to adopt a different approach depending on weather patterns, geology, and topography relative to it. (Large percentages of Hydro for Norway, Solar for Africa, etc., etc.). Needless to say, that would also have to include the economic constraints of the country in question.

Read what has actually been said to that effect and try to comprehend the implications of what you are saying. Throw away lines like “all it needs is the money” prove to me beyond doubt that presently you either don’t comprehend, or are deluding yourself.

You say at one point that your forthcoming speech will represent the views of a political party. (Naughty naughty – WAB is not the place for spouting forth political manifestos at any level). However, leaving that aside for the moment, you say that your/your party’s rationale would be: - QUOTE “We sadly accept that reaching clean energy goals may require some use of nuclear energy, but whenever possible we will seek other solutions. We would be more prepared to subsidise green energy than nuclear, but we accept nuclear may be part of the mix” UNQUOTE.

If there were one, the Lancashire Lad manifesto would read: - “We accept that reaching clean energy goals will require some use of nuclear energy, but whenever possible will seek other economically efficient solutions. We would be more prepared to subsidise reasonably efficient green energy than nuclear, but accept that until such time as green energy becomes economically efficient in the large scale, nuclear will have to be a significant part of the mix if we are to achieve worth while reduction in the use of fossil fuels”.

But then again, what do I know? – I don’t subscribe to the “too much – too soon” principle. You’ve obviously got all the answers, and have just stated that everyone but yourself in this debate is apparently insane. (Sounds about right when I consider politics and politicians in general. – Agree with my opinion or you are insane. – Yep, a real vote catcher that one!).

However, I digress. – As far as I’m concerned, we are at this point going around in circles, and it would be a complete waste of any more of my time trying to reason with someone who admits that their stance on the subject relates to the affinities of their political party. So, this will be my last reply to any of your ill researched, and as is now fairly obvious, politically agenda driven comment.

Good luck with your speech.
Mike.

[Dorts]

I feel the same as you Mike. It would seem that F.E. could just have supplied the link, but instead decided that 'placard waving' the whole piece would add more weight to his argument.

I too did start to counter all of the '10 arguments', which is not difficult. After all they are written by an active member of the Green Party, who believes that if we all turned vegan we will save the planet!

F.E. seems to take Mr Goodall's word as gospel. Well here's a quote from him that he may not wish to hear. On the UK's energy mix, Mr. Goodall has been quoted as saying "Including nuclear power in this mix will make a low-carbon and energy-secure future easier to achieve." I don't know how F.E. is going circle that one?
Dorts.

[Financial Enviro]

I'm going to have to post in response. You might read it, you might not, you might respond, you might not. I'll say one thing which is I am sorry if I come across as a bit full of myself - but it seems I am the only person who believes my side of this issue to have found this particular thread, I have found several articles which point out the kind bad thinking on your side of the argument that you accuse me of. I was kind of high on a fact finding night last night to try and put to bed some of the myths you guys are spouting.

I will address comments in reverse as each point is made:

Originally Posted by Dorts

I too did start to counter all of the '10 arguments', which is not difficult. After all they are written by an active member of the Green Party, who believes that if we all turned vegan we will save the planet!

Actually it has been well documented that meat production is highly unenvironmental. I'm not about to say that we should all become vegans or vegetarians, but we do need to be aware that we in the west have become used to cheap meat. It takes a lot more resources (water / feed) to breed animals, who release methane (an actual cause of some global warming) and end up at bargain prices on our plate due to animal cruelty in some countries.

Originally Posted by Dorts

F.E. seems to take Mr Goodall's word as gospel. Well here's a quote from him that he may not wish to hear. On the UK's energy mix, Mr. Goodall has been quoted as saying "Including nuclear power in this mix will make a low-carbon and energy-secure future easier to achieve." I don't know how F.E. is going circle that one?
Dorts.

Dorts I already posted to say that Chris Goodall has changed his opinion and acknowledged the fact. I'll admit I am a bit confused about this major u-turn on his part. I even had to spend a long time researching why that might be and there are still many people who don't agree - even though in the anti nuclear camp we lost a major player on our side. Just because he changed his mind doesn't make him right as such. That sounds weak - but I am going to argue other points as made by Lancashire Lad to back this up

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

F.E.

I can easily dismiss the “10 big Myths” article as nonsense and could quite happily counter each and every one of Goodall’s quick fix answers to these so called myths. – But why would I bother?

Instead, I shall simply quote the final line of the article – the one line which for some inexplicable () reason you chose to leave out of your verbatim quote:-

QUOTE “Chris Goodall's new book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, is published by Profile books, priced £9.99” UNQUOTE.


There we have it. – He’s trying to sell a book. – So it might sell a few more copies if he crams into it everything that the “greenies” might want to hear. (Let’s face it, people who have knowledge of energy systems and the technologies involved aren’t going to be first in the bookshop queue!!!).

Mike / Lancashire Lad, you have made a point like this before. Is it so terrible that someone who wrote a book would want to sell it? This argument is just stupid, I am looking at a whole shelf of books right now that are on a number of topics - and guess what they all have a price tag on them...? Could it be that people who spend their lives researching and working on subjects, who want to pass on that information to others might possibly need to earn a living too?

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Can’t help myself. – I will comment on just one of the gems of wisdom from that article – relating to solar panels.
QUOTE “….the largest manufacturer of thin panels, claims that its products will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations by 2012”UNQUOTE.
It may have escaped your notice, but we are now in 2012. Solar panel efficiency is still around the 9% mark. Claims that the best are around 17-18% efficient will relate to the so called kWp (kilowatt peak) efficiency which is achieved only under optimal laboratory test conditions – and we all know that optimal conditions don’t occur during the night and when the sun isn’t shining! The only people rushing to build solar power generating systems hereabouts are those get rich quick firms cashing in on the 5MW capacity feed-In-Tariff subsidies. And they certainly aren’t spending their easily gotten gains on research and development.

The company that actually was referenced in the Chris Goodall article pre his big u-turn in 2011. As that company now stands in 2012:

First Solar Sets Another World Record for CdTe Solar PV Efficiency (NASDAQ:FSLR)

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

(NB: I readily accept that solar water heating panels are far more efficient, and that they could conceivably be integrated into much larger scale installations at reasonably economical build cost in the not so distant future).

I concur.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If the extent of your research lies within media programmes and popular press propaganda the likes of which you have quoted so far, you will never gain a proper and reasoned insight into the comparative economics of implementation, nor the reality of what each technology is and is not capable of. (Amply proven by shooting one’s self in the foot, as you have already demonstrated by quoting Goodall, who one minute slates nuclear, and the next minute is all for it).

I wasn't the one quoting from a BBC Panorama documentary or last nights ITV programme about how expensive renewable energy is after a leaked KPMG report that has been slammed as biased and incorrect.

KPMG refuses to publish controversial green energy report | Environment | guardian.co.uk

I read a wide selection of sources, and it is ongoing. I know how lobbying works and often such as in the financial sector professors, heck whole institutions take bungs to hold and preach opinions which support big industry in their lobbying campaigns. So forgive me if I don't trust 100 percent when nuclear energy organisations say they are totally safe and that radiation isn't as big a problem as people think. Watch this clip for an alternative opinion on just how yummy radiation really is:

Dr Helen Caldicott - Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- You won't hear this on the Main Stream News. - YouTube

As for Goodalls u-turn? Shoot myself in the foot? Well no - I was trying to demonstrate that I will be prepared to be transparent in the information that is out there. I give you guys enough respect to know you would pick me up on it anyway. I don't know what turned him the other way. I do know a lot of people don't agree with it, me being one of them. I can point you in the direction of opinion that explains why:

PowerUp FAQs

Why George Monbiot is wrong on nuclear power Cool the Earth

In fact if you read anything I post that Cool The Earth article explains nearly all my counter arguments to you pro-nuclear guys. Its your choice to read it or not.

As for economic implementation - how many times do I have to point out that nuclear has never been cost effective? I have made numerous posts about the fact that it has always - in every country where nuclear exists been state subsidised. That nuclear power stations cannot even get insurance and so that is subsidised. Yet as other reports I have put up have shown wind farms in the UK are profitable, cost effective and getting better and better. Now that is an industry that really needed to drag itself to its current strength against fierce, dumb opposition.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

You talk about people having pomposity and make accusations that some of us might be “rich, conservative land owning types” and then finish off by saying:-
QUOTE “all it needs is the money - and trust me it is there - it's just tied up in offshore accounts and people like Fred Goodwins' bank accounts” UNQUOTE.

I can let the pomposity accusation go, as I get fired up on this subject too, and sometimes the written word looks harsh when read back later on. As for the rich conservative land owning type – (well, certainly in my case), you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

In terms of the pompous quote - someone claimed they were banging their heads against a wall. You yourself refuse to engage me in conversation about this subject. So yeah there does come across a level of pomposity. And for me it is captured in a section of a film called the Age of Stupid.

The Age of Stupid - trailer - YouTube

In that trailer you see a woman say: "it's a fair fight and I hope you lose." Try and watch the whole film, I'm sure you can find it online somewhere, but she is the image I have of many anti wind campaigners. Watch it and perhaps you will see why I have some level of venom for them, why I think there is a level of arrogance and pomposity that is delaying and preventing (actual) good clean tech. This also answers my attitute on parts of the following:

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

You further comment that people’s objections to wind turbines are on the premise that they lower nearby property values. Get real! – There might be a few rich NIMBY’s who have such objections, but those of us who know what we are talking about object from the point of view that present policy is implementing far too many of them than the system can support without compromising security of baseload supply. Or, in order to avoid the inevitable power cuts which their level of implementation will bring, the need to build costly (and when used for that specific purpose very inefficient) gas fuelled back-up. Let alone that the wind turbines themselves are grossly inefficient and expensive in comparison to other available generating methods.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If you had read just a small fraction of the posts made on the subject, you would clearly see that those of us you accuse, all support fully cohesive energy policies – comprising of the most efficient generating technologies available for the area/country in question. Be that coal, gas, nuclear, wind, wave, tidal, or whatever, subsidised when necessary to an extent that would be appropriate without causing financial hardship to the poorest of consumers, and implemented in such proportions as to maintain security of supply at the most economic cost to the country concerned.

That approach would allow a structured method of reduction, and perhaps even the ultimate cessation of the use of fossil fuels within the electrical generating industry. – Ergo, given time, sustainability and environmentally friendly generation on the widest scale possible. – Which is, in my opinion, the most logical, reasonable, and rational way of going about things for the long term.

I'm not going to point out how much nuclear costs again am I (oh wait I just did). Not that cost is necessarily the biggest problem we face. Fuel prices are getting higher and higher anyway - not really because of subsidy, but greed on the part of suppliers and oil prices on the market. We all accept that if we had moved to more renewable energy 20 - 30 years ago as people predicted back then we would be in a better situation. To get the real, green energy we need we now need to start putting money behind those renewables in the same way as we have put money into nuclear for the last 50 years or so. Renewables have never received anywhere near the level of funding they did. We could have done it when it would be cheaper, but mankind as a collective unit is generally stupid and short sighted. Now we have to pay. In terms of supporting and looking after the poor - I totally agree and would support ways that come from people such as Occupy that would stop the rich getting away with so much and actually paying their way. That's another complex conversation - that so many people don't realise what is going on - and too many people are happy to remain oblivious to.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I stress again that such thinking should be adopted globally not just here in Britain. Each country might need to adopt a different approach depending on weather patterns, geology, and topography relative to it. (Large percentages of Hydro for Norway, Solar for Africa, etc., etc.). Needless to say, that would also have to include the economic constraints of the country in question.

Read what has actually been said to that effect and try to comprehend the implications of what you are saying. Throw away lines like “all it needs is the money” prove to me beyond doubt that presently you either don’t comprehend, or are deluding yourself.

And time and time again it has been demonstrated that the UK has a wealth of wind and tidal resources that could power us over and over again. Plus over a 15 year to 20 year period phase in African sun power to Europe and we would be laughing. In terms of international relationships again I agree, but sort the money out first and the rest will follow. Groups such as The Tax Justice Network and SimPol are trying to get a level playing field financially. Do that and there will be more money for most of us and more honest money to go into genuine projects that will help man. This isn't even just about nuclear v wind, this is about unsustainable capitalism that has allowed a world to be run on oil, make people rich on oil and would never want actual 'free / and or cheap electricity,' because there is not a dollar to be made from it. Quote I like is that someone regarded nuclear power stations as a "brilliant way to privatise profits and socialise losses!"

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

You say at one point that your forthcoming speech will represent the views of a political party. (Naughty naughty – WAB is not the place for spouting forth political manifestos at any level). However, leaving that aside for the moment, you say that your/your party’s rationale would be: - QUOTE “We sadly accept that reaching clean energy goals may require some use of nuclear energy, but whenever possible we will seek other solutions. We would be more prepared to subsidise green energy than nuclear, but we accept nuclear may be part of the mix” UNQUOTE.

If there were one, the Lancashire Lad manifesto would read: - “We accept that reaching clean energy goals will require some use of nuclear energy, but whenever possible will seek other economically efficient solutions. We would be more prepared to subsidise reasonably efficient green energy than nuclear, but accept that until such time as green energy becomes economically efficient in the large scale, nuclear will have to be a significant part of the mix if we are to achieve worth while reduction in the use of fossil fuels”.

I didn't actually mention the name of the party with the intention of not forcing an actual party name down your throat. I could be Conservative (although highly unlikely), Labour (possible), Lim Dems (even more possible), Greens (so likely it probably hurts you, but not). In fact none of these and certainly not BNP. So I don't see how I would be influencing people politically on what I suppose is intended to be an apolitical site (although I see a lot of conservatism in its users make up based on this thread). As for my opinions on all this - I started making up my own mind a long time ago, I keep researching and I am not afraid to change my opinion if it is the right thing to do. However as many of the links I have supplied have shown my opposition to nuclear has some support. And I selected the party I work for based on them being in line with things I believe, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

But then again, what do I know? – I don’t subscribe to the “too much – too soon” principle. You’ve obviously got all the answers, and have just stated that everyone but yourself in this debate is apparently insane. (Sounds about right when I consider politics and politicians in general. – Agree with my opinion or you are insane. – Yep, a real vote catcher that one!).

I'm not sure what the "too much too soon" principle is? Do you mean we are building wind farms too quickly? Would you rather we wait another five years? Heck build a nuclear power plant or two if you really have to, but I want to know wind farms and tidal wave is being researched, developed and built just as much in the background (well actually more). Under current projects wind farms are going up in 6 month intervals. It still takes about 10, 15, 20 years to build a nuclear power plant. Which actually I am happy about because Sellafield still has a back log of nuclear waste to decommission and no where to put it.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

However, I digress. – As far as I’m concerned, we are at this point going around in circles, and it would be a complete waste of any more of my time trying to reason with someone who admits that their stance on the subject relates to the affinities of their political party. So, this will be my last reply to any of your ill researched, and as is now fairly obvious, politically agenda driven comment.

Good luck with your speech.
Mike.

[/quote]

As I mentioned my opinions are my own, supported my many and which I happened to find are in line with a political party. There is no chicken / egg issue here. I could change political support on a pin head if any party worked towards a world I wanted to see more. I too believe that I cannot change your opinion as I stated earlier - which does make this kind of pointless, but then that is the nature of debate - usually pointless. But it was worth responding again so that I could address some points for the record. Maybe in time I will be the one who looks foolish, and the daft thing is, to avoid lots of pain, suffering and misery I almost have to hope I am. Because if my fears and many other ever prove true - well then are we going to come back to this post and say - see told you!? Of course not, but we will be in a world of pain if the UK has a serious nuclear accident, and it would probably have cost us a lot of money - that some people who are so pro-nuclear refuse to see is and always will be the case.

Thank you for wishing me luck on my speech. I think it will be okay. I actually have become more anti-nuclear from these posts, more sure of my position from the extra research I did and more suspicious of why some people are so pro-nuclear.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

And time and time again it has been demonstrated that the UK has a wealth of wind and tidal resources that could power us over and over again.

It really, really hasn't. Read Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air by David JC Mackay. The entire book is available as a free download from here: David MacKay FRS: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Contents

In it he stacks up all the energy used in the UK while also calculating all that can be generated from renewable sources. Note can be, not is. Energy usage comes out at 195kWh per person per day, while the total available from exploiting all renewable sources to the full by throwing "all economic, social, and environmental constraints to the wind" is 180 kWh per person per day. It's close but even with wall-to-wall windfarms across the entire UK, hydro electric on every river, tidal barrages surrounding the coastline and solar panels carpeting huge swathes of the countryside, we still can't generate enough from renewables alone to meet the UK's current energy needs.

Dave P.

[Financial Enviro]

I have found differing research, not to say I haven't seen or read opinions such as yours. My sources say different, so it's not as such me against you as my sources against your sources.

One example: PowerUp FAQs

However that being said, lets presume that neither renewable or nuclear will be producing excess energy over our needs by 2020. In all probability this is going to be an absolute fact. You guys have 8 years to build your nuclear power stations (perhaps you ought to get out there with your shovels now... ) by that date. I can point you to so many reports that show that even modern nuclear power stations take an average of 15 years to build and go over budget all the time. You cannot apply technology and design from one nuclear power plant to another, each design has to be unique - so you cannot roll them out like a factory product. You can with wind turbines, and as I said before they can go up (providing smooth planning permission) in 6 months and be generating from day one. We can afford to build many sites of this kind rather than lumping all our eggs into a few baskets (or power stations in key places across the UK).

We will also need to be more smart about how we get and store our energy internationally too. Lets say it takes 20 years or more to get most of Europe's energy grid updated... Do we say it is not worth doing because it won't all be ready by 2020?Of course not. There is so much support for the African Solar project that bit by bit Southern Europe and so on will get cheaper, cleaner energy. And as that happens part of Europe should have spare electricity they can sell abroad. Partner this with better new house design and sensible adaptations to current housing stock and we hopefully will all be using less energy anyway.

I am also a big believer in the concept of using batteries to store electricity. Goodall prior to his U-turn pointed out that electric car batteries would be a great simple way to do this. That all car batteries collected renewable energy at night, but when needed would feed back into the grid when demand was high. I also envision a time when we will be building banks of big, high capacity batteries to store unused electricity - that feed into the grid when needed. In his book Goodall described a fantastic system which used water to convert energy into a perpetual motion device that changed back into energy when needed. I haven't described that very well, cannot find an example online,and I got the book from the library 2 years ago. But the point is there are solutions to the issue of energy generation in contrast to energy demand. Combine all of these technologies and I think the result will be surprising. And yes for the next 15 - 20 years I accept nuclear will be part of the mix. But I don't accept that we should be reliant on it, build much more or even not be in a position where we could not phase it out by 2030 - or that we shouldn't.

In that mean time I really hope that the hundreds of reports I read about nuclear accidents, errors etc don't ever lead into anything more serious than a few million people getting cancers from leaks etc. Because from my understanding that is the reality, people have cancers and diseases that are caused by nuclear activity, but is so hard to prove based on the lifespan of the illness to take root. In your peoples mind that is proof that it is not responsible,to me that is an excuse the nuclear industry is all too happy to hide behind.; and that we don't have another nuclear disaster at all and certainly one that could be as bad as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukishima or Windfield (again) in the UK. We simply don't have the land to set up a contamination zone, and as our overall land area is so small would pretty much mess up all of the UK as our food, water,soil and air is contaminated.

That is absolutely all I have to say on the matter now. Good luck to you all Ladies and Gentlemen, we might need it!

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

I have found differing research, not to say I haven't seen or read opinions such as yours. My sources say different, so it's not as such me against you as my sources against your sources.

The thing is, it's not my opinion. I'm just one of those "everyday ordinary people" with no experience or in-depth knowledge of the subject so any opinion I might hold in this area is frankly not worth a light. It's the opinion of a Cambridge professor of Physics and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Now I realise that doesn't automatically make him right but it does make him far more qualified to hold an opinion than me, you, or most of the people you have quoted at such length.

Dave P.

[Brocakat]

I'm just wondering what an equivalent Hectare-Requirement for the same output by these X-number of yer average-output Wind Turbines + those banks of High Capacity Batteries to store that output when its required by the Grid ---compared to the typical Hectare-Requirement of Land needed for a Nuclear Power Station.

I don't believe there is THAT much available land

----oOo----

I accept that Nuclear Power is dangerous - however I believe there is a lower mortality rate than from Fossil Fuel Extraction/Burning. And in relation to Wind Turbines one has to take into account the Environmental Damage & dangers to people, caused by extraction of preciouos metals that are used to construct these Turbines.

[MattPrince]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

I can point you to so many reports that show that even modern nuclear power stations take an average of 15 years to build and go over budget all the time. You cannot apply technology and design from one nuclear power plant to another, each design has to be unique - so you cannot roll them out like a factory product. You can with wind turbines, and as I said before they can go up (providing smooth planning permission) in 6 months and be generating from day one."

I've read so many reports that show even modern wind turbines take an average of 2 years to build and go over budget all the time. You cannot apply technology and design from one wind farm to another, each wind farm has to be unique - so you cannot roll them out like a factory product. You can with Nuclear, and as I said before they can go up (providing smooth planning permission) in 3 years and be generating from day one ~ even if its not windy .

US Wind Farms produce on average 1.2 Watts per square metre. Requiring 300 square miles to produce the same averge energy as a large nuclear power station (source Energy Advocate), and with horribly inconsistent power. With little land and a large energy hungry population the sums do not stack up for wind power as anything more than a frivolous side line - unless we want them to become the new mono cultural landscape and we all live underneath them.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

I am also a big believer in the concept of using batteries to store electricity. Goodall prior to his U-turn pointed out that electric car batteries would be a great simple way to do this. That all car batteries collected renewable energy at night, but when needed would feed back into the grid when demand was high.

These being the same batteries that use acid to store electricity - come on man, actually think through some of your arguments.


Matt