Bingo! Some people like Numbers are just a vehicle for their agenda.
OT: Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power "Fails On Every Count"
- Thread starter BROTHERSKINNY
- Start date
- Status
Lots of weird stuff in this thread. From the Oxford guy…talking about alternative power before the Industrial Revolution. WTF
Birds and Bats that can’t evade a windmill that is bigger than a football field…
Strange stuff in here.
Birds and Bats that can’t evade a windmill that is bigger than a football field…
Strange stuff in here.
Green energy has always been a culture war topic: the right sees it as a darling of the left and so opposes it with all their might. We've seen the same kind of stuff with electric cars--it's just not possible!--though now that Elon Musk is the face of electric cars suddenly the right is no longer so opposed. To see people who don't even care about humans dying bring up bird deaths in windmills is bizarre. They never cared about other manmade things that kill birds, of which there are many, or all the mercury in coal that pollutes the environment.
Yeah, that made me honestly think that the article had been lifted from The Onion.
I am completely on board with with developing alternative/renewable energy (I generate all the electricity I use with solar panels, as a matter of fact, and sell the extras back to the power company). However, I don't consider fossil fuels to be the work of the devil, and have no problem with anybody who wants to debate the virtues of various technologies. That article, however, seem bat-S crazy...
And LOL, there aren't any birds in Denmark anymore.
Last edited:
That is a great post. It's such a shame that this (and nearly every issue) has been inappropriately politicized. The Left "Okay, Boomers" the Right over fossil fuels, and the Right "Owns the libs" at the Left over alternative/renewable energy.
As you pointed out about electric vehicles/Elon Musk, 75% of the people don't even look at issues. They just look at who is talking. Maybe I am waxing nostalgic (or wrong, in other words), but I don't think people used to be so dogmatic and loyal to their parties without thinking for themselves, as most seem to be now.
I am so proud to be a non-partisan evaluator of each issue on its own, and that both conservatives and liberals hate me...
Last edited:
Yeah, I also get tired of the "But in Sweden..." arguments on a litany of topics. The USA is nothing like those countries, for good and for bad, and that kind of thinking isn't really useful...
Unless you live in Wyoming I guess.
We could probably figure out a way to make them pay for the turbines that will displace them also.
Win-Win
NJ has a similar GDP to Switzerland. Would it be a valid comparison to look at what citizens get in government services?
There is a map where every State is compared to a country with similar GDP.
You could ask Caractacus Potts about the wind turbine in his yard. He'll tell you, works great.
Hey Tom,
I think any comparison is "valid." I prefer the word "useful." And for the example you gave, I don't think it would tell us anything we don't know. New Jersey/America is run economically on a different philosophical basis than most of the developed European countries, for better or for worse. And the populations, in a socio-economic sense, are different, or so it seems to me.
What I think of the various "philosophical bases" that various countries embrace economically is not worth the electrons it would be written on. I'm really not sure what I think, and my feeble thoughts are constantly evolving on this.
I would like to see that map you have described; very interesting...
Ever been to Wyoming? It's the 10th largest state in the US with a population of about 500k - making it the least densely populated of the 50 with the exception of AK and the least populated overall. The largest city in Wyoming (Cheyenne) has a population of 60k.
The point being that in very large parts of the state there are no people. "20 miles to your next door neighbor" kind of no people. In the southern half of the state there's no water. You could put up thousands of these giant windmills and displace no one.
Tens of thousands and maybe even more. I would imagine they could easily power all of Wyoming using wind alone. Could probably export a bunch of excess power to neighboring states.
Why is there not a solar panel on every parking lot and large building? There should be no incentive for a solar farm in a grass field .
Why are we not planting trees by the millions? Plant a tree get a tax credit cut down a tree and pay into a credit bank. I had to cut down a diseased tree a month ago planning on planting one to replace it along with the 6 other new trees we have planted over the years on a half acre property.
This does not need to be hard just common sense ....
New nuclear tech should solve the base energy needed when the wind wont blow and the sun does not shine until energy storage is widely available.
The opposition to new tech is being funded by big oil and gas they see their "cheese" being moved away from them.
Why are we not planting trees by the millions? Plant a tree get a tax credit cut down a tree and pay into a credit bank. I had to cut down a diseased tree a month ago planning on planting one to replace it along with the 6 other new trees we have planted over the years on a half acre property.
This does not need to be hard just common sense ....
New nuclear tech should solve the base energy needed when the wind wont blow and the sun does not shine until energy storage is widely available.
The opposition to new tech is being funded by big oil and gas they see their "cheese" being moved away from them.
Wind power is part of an “all of the above” approach to powering our planet’s energy needs. What is indisputable is that climate change is clearly fvcking up our weather patterns and will affect our ability to grow food and live safely. We can no longer rely exclusively on coal and oil-based energy sources. We need solar, wind, nuclear as part of the equation.It could be argued that the basic arithmetic showing wind power is an economic and societal disaster in the making should be clear to a bright primary school child. Now the Oxford University mathematician and physicist, researcher at CERN and Fellow of Keble College, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison has done the sums. The U.K. is facing the likelihood of a failure in the electricity supply, he concludes.
“Wind power fails on every count,” he says, adding that governments are ignoring “overwhelming evidence” of the inadequacies of wind power, “and resorting to bluster rather than reasoned analysis”.
Professor Allison’s dire warnings are contained in a short paper recently published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He notes that the energy provided by the Sun is “extremely weak”, which is why it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a small global population before the Industrial Revolution with an acceptable standard of living. A similar point was made recently in more dramatic fashion by the nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer. He argued that the infrastructure around wind and solar will not only fail, “but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment and be entirely unnecessary”.
In his paper, Allison concentrates on working out the numbers that lie behind the natural fluctuations in the wind. The full workings out are not complicated and can be assessed from the link above. He shows that at a wind speed of 20mph, the power produced by a wind turbine is 600 watts per square metre at full efficiency. To deliver the same power as the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant – 3,200 million watts – it would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area.
It is noted that this should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and other environmentalists. Of course, this concern does not seem to have materialised to date. Millions of bats and birds are calculated to be slaughtered by onshore wind turbines every year. Meanwhile, off the coast of Massachusetts, work is about to start on a giant wind farm, complete with permits to harass and likely injure almost a tenth of the population of the rare North Atlantic Right whale.
When fluctuations in wind speed are taken into account in Allison’s formula, the performance of wind becomes very much worse. If the wind speed drops by half, the power available falls by a factor of eight. Almost worse, he notes, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up eight times, and the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection.
The effect of the enhanced fluctuations is dramatic, as shown in the graph above. The installed nominal generating capacity in the EU and U.K. in 2021, shown by the brown dashed line, was 236 GW, but the highest daily output was only 103 GW on March 26th. The unreliability is shown to even greater effect in the second graph that plots the wind generated offshore in the U.K. in March last year.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eminent-oxford-scientist-says-wind-power-fails-every-count
Sure. As long as you compare gas taxes, VAT/Sales taxes and income tax rates for people earning between 50 and 350k. The free shit army that believes that the millionaires and billionaires pay for all those services would get an education.
I was under the impression, I can find the articles etc, that much of the waste can now be recycled with certain types of reactors. Not all but a good amount.
I could be wrong but I could swear I read that with smaller salt reactors etc..
It's a technical feasibility, although there's been little implementation.
I've personally believed for a long time that the best application for nuclear lies with smaller, more modular power systems as opposed to the very large scale facilities that we typically associate with "nuclear energy". The USN has vast experience in perfecting the art so there's certainly sufficient basis for building something operational that could, for example, power a small city. Much smaller plants means better scalability, IMO.
I remember seeing an article Iike you're saying about recycling nuclear waste, but also read the United States doesn't try
here's one
5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel | Department of Energy
>5. Spent fuel can be recycled
That’s right!
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on spent nuclear fuel in the future.<
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
I am seriously impressed with the knowledge displayed by people on this board.This is positively not your typical FB board.
Right on cue....
www.yahoo.com
US electricity from renewables surpasses coal for first time
Renewable energy for the first time comprised more electricity generated in the U.S. last year than coal or nuclear power, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The federal agency found the growth was largely driven by increased proliferation of wind and solar...
Texas Used More Energy from Wind Than Coal this Year — What Does that Actually Mean?
July is likely to be the hottest month ever recorded on earth. And while the planet has been heating up, so too has been Texas' renewable energy industry. For the first time in the brief history of wind power, Texas produced more energy from wind than coal, by a small...
Wind 21.8% of Texas energy use
Coal 21.3%
Nuclear 11.3%
Gas CC 38.3%
Gas 5.6%
Nobody is forcing Texas to produce wind power. I read it take 10 years to produce a nuclear plant not counting NIMBY add another 5 years and there’s significant cost overrun by the billions.
U.S. nuclear power generation by state 2023 | Statista
The state of Illinois is the leading producer of nuclear energy in the United States.
www.statista.com
Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it
The global sustainability of nuclear power thus relies on efforts to increase its economic viability. But how? Standardized designs and downsized reactors can help. Governments can offer additional support. But that still might not be enough to keep the nuclear power industry alive in the United...
thebulletin.org
In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States.
Last edited:
Several U.S. utilities back out of deal to build novel nuclear power plant
Even with infusion of federal cash, plan to build NuScale plant too pricey for some
Plans to build an innovative new nuclear power plant—and thus revitalize the struggling U.S. nuclear industry—have taken a hit as in recent weeks: Eight of the 36 public utilities that had signed on to help build the plant have backed out of the deal. The withdrawals come just months after the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), which intends to buy the plant containing 12 small modular reactors from NuScale Power, announced that completion of the project would be delayed by 3 years to 2030. It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion.
The deal protects UAMPS customers by specifying a maximum cost for electricity from the plant of $55 per MWh, Webb says, which should make it competitive with the future price of electricity from gas. DOE will help ensure that rate, he says, as it recently finalized a plan to bear $1.4 billion of the cost of the plant. "If it's more than $55 [per MWh] we will not build the plant," he says.
Western US cities vote to move ahead with novel nuclear power plant
Plans for the first U.S. small modular nuclear power reactor got a boost on Tuesday as some Western U.S. cities vowed to continue with the NuScale Power Corp project despite a jump in projected costs.
NuScale plans to build a demonstration small modular reactor (SMR) power plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. If successful, the six-reactor, 462 megawatt Carbon Free Power Project will run in 2030.
NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant is $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh, a jump that raised concerns about whether customers would be willing to pay for the power it generates.
the first article was in Nov 2020 and the second one was in March 2023. I think we need to generate as much power with as many sources as possible, wind, solar, gas, oil and nuclear.
China leads the world in wind generation, solar power generation and EV vehicles. The US should be leading the world in these industries.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
China plans to build at least 150 new nuclear reactors over the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world in 35 years. 10 new reactors per year, on average.
China greenlights 6 new nuclear reactors in shift away from coal
$19bn buildup to help double nuclear power capacity by 2030
asia.nikkei.com
The Chinese government has approved the construction of six reactors as part of a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than doubling nuclear power capacity this decade.
Three nuclear power plants in coastal provinces will each receive two new reactors, according to local media. Construction costs are estimated at 120 billion yuan ($18.7 billion) for all six reactors combined, Chinese media report.
China ranks third in the world in terms of installed nuclear power capacity after the U.S. and France. But nuclear energy accounts for only a little over 2% of the nation's power generating capacity, and just 5% of overall electricity output last year.
Last edited:
I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. It'd reduce the size of the investment and perception somewhat, but there would still be the NIMBY fear and issue with waste transportation.
Hell, why can't the US deploy subs off the coast to power the grid with their nuclear power. 100% flexible and dramatically reduces waste transportation issue bc wouldn't be handled via land...
You mean purpose-built "generating subs"? My guess is there would be a lot of concerns about that. Foremost in my mind is the fact that building a submarine is a very specific thing - even without a nuclear power plant on board a big sub is a f*ck-all expensive thing.
Maybe we should split the difference with these ideas and go with "offshore nuclear power plants" built on platforms. FWIW, the NuScale SMR containment structure is 75 feet by 15 feet. You could fit that pretty much anywhere, bearing in mind that it's only containment and doesn't include generation and control.
@dconifer
Here you go
US State GDPs Compared to Entire Countries | Mark J. Perry
Adjusted for the size of the workforce, there might not be any country in the world that produces as much output per worker as the US, thanks to the world-class productivity of the American workforce.
fee.org
“comprehensive study”…lol. Paid by who ? Whatever this guy suggests believe the opposite
The runner-up for the ScarletNation Low IQ Award has some thoughts.
I suppose it can't get worse than people turning vaccines or masks into a political issue--or the very existence of a virus--but you never know. Some people work hard at it.
I'm firmly on the left but perfectly willing to admit that there are people over here who are, what's the word? Obnoxious? Annoying? Doctrinaire? Rigid? Mindless? But it should be clear at this point that the right is worse, far worse: making even doctors into enemies? Doctors?? Why wouldn't you want cleaner, totally domestic energy that undercuts sh*tbag regimes like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezeula, the gulf states? There are mindless partisans on both sides who will even blame a stubbed toe or mold on bread on the other side's worldview but the right is so mindlessly partisan now that they're opposing even things that would benefit them, with spittle flying and communist conspiracy theories, because the other side supports them.
The contortions some people go through are mind boggling. It's not so surprising, but still highly hypocritical, that I don't recall anyone who loves fossil fuels and hates renewable fuels getting all worked up about the fact that fossil fuel power plants kill far more birds per kwhr than renewables do. So now they've had to move on to making shit up about windmills and whales.
The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 (bird) fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html
If they don't care about viruses and bacteria, why would they care about smog?
- Status
