Nuclear meltdown! Holy Godzilla NOOOO!!!

[FXMastermind]

@gonzomax

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/03/japanese-nuclear-reactor-workers-evacuated-again/
There is smoke billowing out of 2 reactors indicating something burning. For the second time in 2 days they have evacuated the workers.
There is radioactive iodine in the water at more than double safe limits in Tokyo and as far away as 250 KM. The people are being told not to allow children to drink tap water.

Yeah, but the important thing is how much wind power doesn’t exist, or of it does, how there isn’t enough land or something. Ignore the large radioactive reptile trashing Japan.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@levdrakon

Fortunately, neithers is right. Also fails to account for offshore wind? Land area, land schmarea.

Well spotted. In doing a quick check on the claim that North Dakota could generate enough windpower to power the US, I did not account for offshore wind farms.

What the fuck sort of stupid are you?

[FXMastermind]

The “Nuclear power is safe and if you don’t believe it you are a poop head” thread is over there ==>

[Gary_Kumquat]

@FXMastermind

The “Nuclear power is safe and if you don’t believe it you are a poop head” thread is over there ==>

Still waiting for that cite for your claim about North Dakota.

At a guess though, based upon your previous posts, I’m guessing you’ll either claim you were being “sarcastic” (and further demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept) or decry that it’s irrelevant to this thread (without mentioning it was you who raised the point)

Because I suspect that as well as being a bit dim, you’re also a disingenuous twat of the first water.

[mhendo]

@levdrakon

Fortunately, neithers is right. Also fails to account for offshore wind? Land area, land schmarea.

What do you mean, neither is right?

As i said, i based my calculation on Gary Kumquat’s figure of 1655 billion square metres of land.

This much land is equal to 1,655,000 square kilometres, or about 638,999 square miles, which is about one-sixth of the area of the United States. If you can show me that my calculation was wrong, i’ll happily concede the error.

Leaving out offshore wind was completely irrelevant to the point, because Gary Kumquat was merely responding to the claim that North Dakota, by itself, should be able to power the whole United States using wind power. Rebutting that claim does not require taking a position on the viability of offshore wind.

[XT]

Possibly their is some confusion over sea access to North Dakota. Here is a helpful map showing all of the offshore opportunities available for wind in that state.

-XT

[levdrakon]

@Gary_Kumquat

Well spotted. In doing a quick check on the claim that North Dakota could generate enough windpower to power the US, I did not account for offshore wind farms.

What the fuck sort of stupid are you?

I said land area, land schmarea. What is this “pave over North Dakota” nonsense you’ve got going? Is there a point in there somewhere?

Trees take up a lot of space. Big whoop. The space they use isn’t exactly used by skyscrapers, now is it? Wind farms aren’t as scenic as trees, but most wind farms aren’t put anywhere we don’t already have billboard farms, never mind trees just taking up space.

[CannyDan]

@xtisme

Possibly their is some confusion over sea access to North Dakota. Here is a helpful map showing all of the offshore opportunities available for wind in that state.

-XT

Huh! So Manitoba isn’t another name for the Inland Sea?

Who knew?

[mhendo]

@levdrakon

I said land area, land schmarea. What is this “pave over North Dakota” nonsense you’ve got going? Is there a point in there somewhere?

The point is that** FXMastermind** has claimed, in this thread, that North Dakota, by itself, could produce enough wind power for the whole United States. For folks like Gary Kumquat, the only point of this “pave over North Dakota” nonsense is precisely to refute a claim about North Dakota’s wind power capabilities.

[levdrakon]

@mhendo

The point is that** FXMastermind** has claimed, in this thread, that North Dakota, by itself, could produce enough wind power for the whole United States. For folks like Gary Kumquat, the only point of this “pave over North Dakota” nonsense is precisely to refute a claim about North Dakota’s wind power capabilities.

Can’t speak to that. People love to talk about the amount of pure energy is available in wind, or a cup of seawater, or a thousand tons of radioactive fissionable material, but we should keep things realistic.

A lot of these wind comparisons are out of date. Unlike nuclear technology, wind technology, and its industry, are growing fast. I don’t see any way we’ve got the manufacturing capability or skilled labor to run more than a few more nuke plants over the next decade. Nuke simply cannot grow to meet our needs.

Was it you who brought up the 8% nuke vs. 20% nuke thing? Nuke provides around 20% of commercially generated electricity, it does not provide for more than around 8% of our total energy use.

Replacing 8% of our energy use is easy with renewables and efficiency improvements. Nuke, OTOH, can’t even dream of replacing its own aging plants at a rate where it can maintain it’s 8% of our energy.

[FXMastermind]

At current levels of wind technology, it would cost around 700 billion dollars to put up enough windmills to provide the power for all of the United States.

There is no way North Dakota could provide enough land area for that many windmills.

But, for the price of 17 billion (guaranteed loans) it is possible to provide wind electricity power for 7,650,000 homes. (low end figure, because you can’t count on good wind all the time)

That is about 7 percent of the homes in the United States.

For comparing, it would take 3466 1.5 Mw windmills to provide the same power as a four reactor plant.

Nuclear plant 17 billion (maybe) no return for at least 12 years

Windmills — 5 billion , return as soon as they are up, payback in less than three years

Just the interest on the loan will cost a nuclear power plant far more than it would cost to simply put up the windmills to equal it.

These calculation can be off by a huge amount, and the numbers still show wind power wins.

In other words, you can double the cost of win, and it is still cheaper. And faster. And safer.

And more profitable.

[XT]

This link was used by another poster earlier (sorry, don’t remember who, but it’s a great link…fascinating). Here is the section on wind power:

The UK has the best wind resources in Europe. Sustainable Development Commission

Wind farms will devastate the countryside pointlessly. James Lovelock

How much wind power could we plausibly generate?

We can make an estimate of the potential of on-shore (land-based) wind
in the United Kingdom by multiplying the average power per unit land-
area of a wind farm by the area per person in the UK:

power per person = wind power per unit area × area per person.

Chapter B (p263) explains how to estimate the power per unit area of a
wind farm in the UK. If the typical windspeed is 6 m/s (13 miles per hour,
or 22 km/h), the power per unit area of wind farm is about 2 W/m2.

This figure of 6 m/s is probably an over-estimate for many locations in
Britain. For example, figure 4.1 shows daily average windspeeds in Cam-
bridge during 2006. The daily average speed reached 6 m/s on only about
30 days of the year – see figure 4.6 for a histogram. But some spots do
have windspeeds above 6 m/s – for example, the summit of Cairngorm in
Scotland (figure 4.2).

Plugging in the British population density: 250 people per square kilo-
metre, or 4000 square metres per person, we find that wind power could generate

2 W/m2 ×4000 m2/person = 8000 W per person,

if wind turbines were packed across the whole country, and assuming
2 W/m2 is the correct power per unit area. Converting to our favourite
power units, that’s 200 kWh/d per person.

Let’s be realistic. What fraction of the country can we really imagine
covering with windmills? Maybe 10%? Then we conclude: if we covered
the windiest 10% of the country with windmills (delivering 2 W/m2), we
would be able to generate 20 kWh/d per person, which is half of the power
used by driving an average fossil-fuel car 50 km per day.

Britain’s onshore wind energy resource may be “huge,” but it’s evi-
dently not as huge as our huge consumption. We’ll come to offshore wind
later.

I should emphasize how generous an assumption I’m making. Let’s
compare this estimate of British wind potential with current installed wind
power worldwide. The windmills that would be required to provide the
UK with 20 kWh/d per person amount to 50 times the entire wind hardware
of Denmark; 7 times all the wind farms of Germany; and double the
entire fleet of all wind turbines in the world.

The Whitelee wind farm being built near Glasgow in Scotland has 140
turbines with a combined peak capacity of 322 MW in an area of 55 km2.
That’s 6 W/m2, peak. The average power produced is smaller because the
turbines don’t run at peak output all the time. The ratio of the average
power to the peak power is called the “load factor” or “capacity factor,”
and it varies from site to site, and with the choice of hardware plopped
on the site; a typical factor for a good site with modern turbines is 30%.
If we assume Whitelee has a load factor of 33% then the average power
production per unit land area is 2 W/m2 – exactly the same as the power
density we assumed above

Wind turbines are getting bigger all the time. Do bigger wind turbines
change this chapter’s answer?

Chapter B explains. Bigger wind turbines deliver financial economies
of scale, but they don’t greatly increase the total power per unit land area,
because bigger windmills have to be spaced further apart. A wind farm
that’s twice as tall will deliver roughly 30% more power.
Wind power fluctuates all the time. Surely that makes wind less useful?

Maybe. We’ll come back to this issue in Chapter 26, where we’ll look
at wind’s intermittency and discuss several possible solutions to this problem,
including energy storage and demand management.

-XT

[levdrakon]

@xtisme

This link was used by another poster earlier (sorry, don’t remember who, but it’s a great link…fascinating). Here is the section on wind power:

James Lovecock, best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis and authoring books such as Homage to Gaia, The Revenge of Gaia, and Great Extinction?

Biased. Quack.

[FXMastermind]

Nuclear people hate wind power?

[XT]

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
At current levels of wind technology, it would cost around 700 billion dollars to put up enough windmills to provide the power for all of the United States.
[/QUOTE]

What do you base this statement on? Are you saying we could replace all our existing energy generation with wind powered generators for $700 billion?? And that this would give us not only the same capacity as our existing power generation but the same functionality and capability??

(This all leaves aside whether it’s even physically possible to manufacture, let alone deploy wind generators on that scale)

But, for the price of 17 billion (guaranteed loans) it is possible to provide wind electricity power for 7,650,000 homes. (low end figure, because you can’t count on good wind all the time)

Again, what are you basing this on? How much energy are you using for your calculation for 7.65 million homes? What price per wind turbine and what’s your estimate energy output per wind turbine? What would the density of turbines have to be in order to generation whatever energy you are claiming…and where would you put the generators? Are you claiming this would be a complete solution (IOW, would it generate the power for these fantasy 7.65 million homes 100% of the time, or some other percentage)…and if so, how would it do so if there was no wind blowing on a given day? Or highly variable winds? Or light winds? What percentage of the turbines would be down for maintenance at any given time, and what would the mean time to failure be for any given turbine?

In other words, you can double the cost of win, and it is still cheaper. And faster. And safer.

Any yet, no one is doing it on those scales. Sounds like a great business opportunity for you to get in on.

Of course, it sounds like you are pulling these numbers and predictions out of your ass, so unless you can back them up I doubt many folks are going to rush out to take advantage of this great business opportunity…

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
James Lovecock, best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis and authoring books such as Homage to Gaia, The Revenge of Gaia, and Great Extinction?
[/QUOTE]

No idea who that is…the section I quoted says David JC MacKay who I also don’t know. Do you have any actual refutation of the cited material, other than what looks to me to be an ad hominem?

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Nuclear people hate wind power?
[/QUOTE]

I love wind. Solar too. I just try and keep it within the realms of what’s actually possible and not go off on fantasy tangents as you seem to be doing.

-XT

[billfish678]

@FXMastermind

Nuclear people hate wind power?

With the heat of a billion suns.

[xenophon41]

@xtisme

No idea who that is…the section I quoted says David JC MacKay who I also don’t know. Do you have any actual refutation of the cited material, other than what looks to me to be an ad hominem?

levdrakon didn’t read beyond the two contrasting quotations MacKay starts the chapter with; one praising wind resources in the UK from the Sustainable Development Commission (whoever they are), and a crazy one from Lovelock. This apparently allows him to feel justified in skipping the actual facts in the article.

I love wind. Solar too. I just try and keep it within the realms of what’s actually possible and not go off on fantasy tangents as you seem to be doing.

-XT

You’re not following along. If you’re realistic about power requirements, or insufficiently fearful of nuclear power, you cannot support renewable energy sources. (I’m sure this is codified in law somewhere, but I just can’t look for a cite right now. Too busy giggling at my last sarcastic comment.)

[XT]

[QUOTE=xenophon41]
levdrakon didn’t read beyond the two contrasting quotations MacKay starts the chapter with; one praising wind resources in the UK from the Sustainable Development Commission (whoever they are), and a crazy one from Lovelock. This apparently allows him to feel justified in skipping the actual facts in the article.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that’s what I figured. He obviously didn’t click on the link (which he should have, since I couldn’t put the charts or graphs into my post).

You’re not following along. If you’re realistic about power requirements, or insufficiently fearful of nuclear power, you cannot support renewable energy sources. (I’m sure this is codified in law somewhere, but I just can’t look for a cite right now. Too busy giggling at my last sarcastic comment.)

Oh…well, I didn’t get the memo. So, ok…I hate wind and solar with the heat of 10,000 billion billion (nuclear powered) suns! I hate it in the very fiber of my cereal!!

Don’t worry about a cite…your comment was sarcastic and funny enough to make one unnecessary.

-XT

[Gary_Kumquat]

@levdrakon

James Lovecock, best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis and authoring books such as Homage to Gaia, The Revenge of Gaia, and Great Extinction?

Biased. Quack.

If your going to use an ad hominem in an attempt to dismiss a cite, it helps if you get the author right. It was written by David MacKay. I presume you meant Lovelock rather than “Lovecock”. The only thing in the link by him is the quote they’ve used at the top.