I have a good friend who’s a nuclear engineer who would disagree with you completely, unless you’re using a definition of “discussed and tested” that could be used to say “wind power is all very much ancient technology”.
If you want to do that, I guess we can reduce both nuclear and wind technology essentially to the wheel. Except, nuclear has to fission a few hundred tons of highly radioactive material to boil water to turn a wheel, and a wind turbine simply turns the wheel. Très élégant, n’est-ce pas?
You were the one trying to reduce the technology to simplistic terms, lev. I was just pointing out that we’ve been using wind power for longer than nuclear…and we’ve been using wind generated electricity longer than nuclear as well. The technology of wind works exactly the same today as it did a century ago…the only real difference is the materials and efficiency they can get out of the turbines today. Solar is also nothing really new, if we are going to reduce it to the same terms as your post that I was responding too…it’s all about the refinements.
4th gen nuclear power plants are as similar to 1st or 2nd gen power plants as a wind turbine producing electricity a century ago is to today’s turbines…the only real difference on the wind side is the scale. Today’s wind turbines are monsters compared to turbines in the past. But the basic technology? It’s exactly the same.
-XT
Wind mills are ancient tech. Wind turbines are considered to be 70’s technology, and the turbines deployed in the 70’s, and even 80’s are now ridiculously out of date.
That’s all I have to say about that.
Well then, we’ll say more more about it. 
-XT
All I know that any tech that arose more than 20 or 30 years ago is worthless and should be avoided. That is why, among other things, I drive a car without wheels. Those things are like 3000 year old bullshit tech.
I didn’t say it, you did.
Similarly, reactors being built now in many places are based on Generation-II+/III 60s/70s tech (i.e., ridiculously out of date) because that’s what has regulatory approval. It’s an unfortunate fact of NIMBYism that more modern, cleaner, lower-waste-producing (by multiple orders of magnitude, in some cases) reactor designs are not being built primarily due to pressure on government regulatory agencies from the anti-nuclear crowd. Meanwhile, China is going whole-hog (so I hear) on Generation III+ reactors.
A lot of that, I’m given to understand, is that a lot of the most promising reactor designs for fuel efficiency and minimizing radioactive byproducts are fast-breeder reactors, which are widely viewed (with reasonably good reason) as a source of weapons-grade plutonium. The problem with that is that, inherently, recycling spent nuclear fuel and reusing it to reduce the cumulative waste of the plants involves producing plutonium-based fuel.
The 20 by 2030 DOE report was brought up specifically in response to the statement that there are no serious estimates that say 20% wind is doable, “any sort of realistic assessment” in 30 to 40 years was the challenge. The DOE I think counts a realistic assessment.
The new Shephard’s Flat wind farm in Oregon is in the news at the moment.Google Invests $100M in (Another!) Wind Farm.
The project is using GE’s 2.5xl wind turbines. The technology in these particular turbines is described as next-gen permanent magnet generators -“tech-speak for evolutionary turbine technology that will improve efficiency, reliability and grid connection capabilities.”
Yeah, I’m not sure who is planning on deploying 7MW turbines, or what they would cost. You can’t really get a per turbine price tag for projects that large until you actually start seriously negotiating it with the builder.
Land based wind power is still young. The DOE report I seem to remember compared it to the US automotive industry in the 1940’s, when it was just starting to explode and we had highways and gas stations everywhere almost overnight. Not that fast, but faster than nay-sayers predicted. Next up is off-shore wind, which in my opinion has even more room to evolve and grow than land-based wind, and if we see large scale deployments of 7MW turbines it could very well be off-shore.
Good point. I guess it depends on how many turbines could be expected to go down at once. I think it’s better for our energy security to have a decentralized energy generation system drop 7 MWs here and there temporarily which hopefully a smarter transmission grid would laugh at, than currently when we have a 1000MW plant go down. That’s a lot of energy to take off the grid, but we do it all the time for testing, refueling, etc. Just the other day, one of the two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia unexpectedly shut down and so far they don’t know why. But, those sorts of things happen.
As I’ve said in other threads (or maybe this one)–the US government is sufficiently serious about wind power that they’re paying a lot of money to rapidly develop the capability to cope with wind infrastructure’s effect with regard to weather prediction/warning, air traffic control, and national defense. See also this Dept. of Homeland Security contract (yeah, it’s a press release, but of the three companies involved it’s the clearest-written one. =P)
See, that pisses me off. NIMBYism at its finest, and it isn’t even rich, stuck-up latte-sipping SUV-driving New Englanders. The FAA and DOD? And the weather channel? The weather guy can’t show us colorful radar maps that don’t accurately predict anyone’s weather anyway?
Boo hoo cry me a river. Work it out already! 9000MW of wind energy delayed or abandoned in 2009 because of this.
The Shephard’s Flat wind farm is 845 MWs and will avoid 1.2 million tons of air pollution per year. Let’s just call it 1.2 million tons of avoided pollution per 1000MW. That’s almost 11 million tons of pollution per year we could be avoiding.
We should bill the FAA for that.
ETA, or, we should bill the DOD for making the US impenetrable to enemy radar guided weapons. Line the borders with wind turbines! 
The irony factor of your last post is pretty much off the scale, lev. 
You owe me a new computer screen…
-XT
I’m on record as strongly favoring NIMBYs getting plowed in the ass by 7MW turbines!
Sure, but your feelings about NIMBYism wrt nuclear is a bit more, um, ambiguous…which is what I was talking about. That’s the irony factor.
-XT
I know what you’re talking about but you can’t deny delays and cancellations and huge cost overruns by the nuclear industry even in pro-nuke environments.
Also, it appears the radar thing is immanently, imminently and eminently solvable. Some of nuke’s problems remain problems for millions of years.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I know what you’re talking about but you can’t deny delays and cancellations and huge cost overruns by the nuclear industry even in pro-nuke environments.
[/QUOTE]
Nuclear power plants certainly cost a lot, and there are a lot of delays…and, I concede freely, that not all of them are caused by the anti-nuclear community deliberately trying to sabotage the building of any of the things. But the main reason we don’t have new, cheaper and better designs is directly related to the anti-nuclear attitude that has been deliberately build not just in the US but practically world wide by the various anti-nuclear groups out there.
Well, I don’t think the sun is all THAT much of a problem…
That’s really the only nuke problem I can think of that lasts on those kinds of exaggerated time scales. What problem were you referring too? The problem with the earths core? Um…the problem of the lack of anti-matter? That one was resolved fairly early on. What did you have in mind, exactly?
-XT
[QUOTE=levdrakon;13728229Also, it appears the radar thing is immanently, imminently and eminently solvable.[/quote]
Within two years, presuming the contract goes on time and on budget–and I guarantee you the portion MY company is working on will be 
That’s off by two orders of magnitude for any useful definition of the term “problems”. (typical fission reactor byproducts decay down below the level of current EPA background radiation standards in 10,000-50,000 years).
More to the point it’s just as true of the coal plants (in terms of both trace uranium release and larger environmental damage concerns) that we (thinking) pro-nuke types want to replace with relatively clean (that is, the residuals have half-lifes of hundreds of years, not thousands or millions) and efficient (utilizing somewhere near 99% of the fissionable energy in mined uranium, compared with under 10% from a typical thermal reactor) Generation IV fast breeders. As a step on the road to 100% renewable power, mind you, which is obviously (at least to anyone thinking clearly) the ideal final destination.
I especially like the molton lead designs. Nothing like a reactor reacting to lost external power by maintaining a few feet of solid lead between the reactor core and the outside.
I’ve always felt that’s not the correct metric anyway. Spent fuel decays to about the same radiation level as the uranium that was originally pulled out of the ground in the first place in about 600-1000 years. Assuming no reprocessing, the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel is higher than that of uranium pulled out of the ground because the plutonium constituent is an alpha-emitter rather than a beta-emitter like U235, so its harmfulness on ingestion/inhalation remains potentially greater. Reprocessing solves this quite neatly and the bioavailability of plutonium oxide is low in any case.
I’m not sure there’s any real ideal metric here, since so much of it depends on the specific format of the materials–as I’ve said in other threads, I’d curl up next to a pound of plutonium every night for a year, so long as precautions were taken to never accidentally break off powder-sized particles.