News What do Cape Wind and Nuclear Power Have in Common?

[Shalashaska]

And the beat goes on... and the beat goes on...


I was just looking over the http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Approval-of-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-Outer-Continental-Shelf-off-Massachusetts.cfm" on the matter and laughed out loud at several spots:



Now these turbines are at least 5 miles off shore. Did the native tribes invent scuba gear and have underwater cities out there? Did they bury their dead there, like sailors do? Did someone flood the Atlantic ocean within the last 30,000 years, covering an old settlement? Please. Will someone please point out what I am missing here?


Oh my god. Instead of looking at a black horizon, people are going to have to look at red lights, 5 miles in the distance. I can already hear the headlines; "One of the Kennedy's, in their private single engined plane, collided with one of the Cape Cod wind towers. The family sites this tragic loss as a prime reason the farm should have been never build. "It kills people!""

Ah ha! The worst view in the world:

[PLAIN]http://www.capewind.org/images//cotuit.jpg
View from Cotuit - 5.6 Miles

What pathetic arguments...

Regarding what's bolded... I did that. Sorry!

 

[mheslep]

Cape Wind is a pretty narrow example of genuinely USEFUL wind farming. The idea that it can replace coal fired plants without storage capacity in the grid, and without prohibitive investment in transmission, is fantastic however.

None of the serious ideas about wind energy include 'replacing' fossil fuels by itself. The idea is to run wind up to 10-15% of the grid (relatively easy), and maybe 20-30% with more serious investment. Right now US wind capacity is about http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp" Note that coal is down to ~46-47% of the US electrical supply now and falling, both as a percentage of the whole and by absolute output.

 

[Shalashaska]

None of the serious ideas about wind energy include 'replacing' fossil fuels by itself. The idea is to run wind up to 10-15% of the grid (relatively easy), and maybe 20-30% with more serious investment. Right now US wind capacity is about http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp" Note that coal is down to ~46-47% of the US electrical supply now and falling, both as a percentage of the whole and for absolute output.

That's a laudable goal, which should be achieved sometime after lawsuits go out of style. In the meantime, nuclear plants can handily replace far more coal fired plants. The lack of political will in both cases is fairly similar. Someone eventually has to stand up and defend these projects in their own districts, but for now that's political suicide.

 

[aquitaine]

That 'hard-light' poster is confused and/or wrong about wind power in just about every paragraph. Here's a good background report.
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report

So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of land for massively inefficient bird killing windfarms in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines?

The biggest problem with wind is that is fundementally inefficient and is heavily subsidized. Instead of investing tens of billions of dollars into tearing up our country, why not invest it in proven technology that can keep the lights on when the wind isn't blowing?

I also see that "report" was put together by a DC lobbyist group so I question its figures.

EDIT:

Eh? I was agreeing with you.

Sorry I musunderstood.

 

[OmCheeto]

So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of land

I do!

for massively inefficient bird killing windfarms

Yes. There are much more efficient ways of killing birds:

http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm"

Bird Deaths a year: 100 to 900+ million
Dr. Daniel Klem of Muhlenberg College has done studies over a period of 20 years, looking at bird collisions with windows. His conclusion: glass kills more birds than any other human related factor.

Let's shutter up all the windows and live in the dark. Mole people, mole people...

in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines?

Yeeeees! Cha-Ching!

hmmm...

I wonder if Gore is also invested in Alcoa?

 

[mheslep]

So you think we should wastefully gobble up massive amounts of land for massively inefficient bird killing windfarms in the middle of no where having to run out massive amounts of electrical lines?

I reject that characterization.

The biggest problem with wind is that is fundementally inefficient and is heavily subsidized. Instead of investing tens of billions of dollars into tearing up our country, why not invest it in proven technology that can keep the lights on when the wind isn't blowing?

I also see that "report" was put together by a DC lobbyist group so I question its figures.

The "report" was prepared primarily by the US Department of Energy as clearly shown http://www.20percentwind.org/report/Appendix%20D_Lead_Authors_Reviewers_and_Other_Contributors.pdf" . Many things kill birds, of the man made type buildings are by far the main culprit. I don't favor subsidies, but then many fossil fuel industries receive subsidies, and wind turbines should at least get the same breaks. As for the rest - "wastefully", "gobble", "massive", "massively", "fundamentally" - those terms prohibit further discussion unless put in context and compared to something. Otherwise it is just hyperbole.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Another point on this "bird-killing" aside:

Is it clear that more birds die from wind farms than from an equivalent megawattage of coal plants? Presumably birds' respiratory systems are affected in ways similar to humans, etc.

 

[mgb_phys]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

 

[mheslep]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Nice link. Thanks.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Wind turbines seem to kill very few birds

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html" .

 

[Jack21222]

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html" .

Make that bar 5 times longer, and it's still almost invisible.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Make that bar 5 times longer, and it's still almost invisible.

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce. Oh the environmentalist quandary, a green source killing off a member of an endangered species.

 

[russ_watters]

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce.

Is that really true or is that just what the hype implies? Ie, if 1000 times more birds are killed by windows, even if "large and scarce" birds are 100x more represented by windmills, 10x more would be killed by windows.

 

[mheslep]

Is there any chance that there is a more up to date chart? The one that was sourced was from 2003. That year the total power production for wind was 5,995 MW. That would be 4,611 towers (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 1,665 towers (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). In 2008 there was 24,651 MW produced. Since wind farms realistically get a boost from new turbines, 4 times more capacity means 14,350 new units (Siemens 1.3 MW tower) to 5,182 new units (Siemens 3.6 MW tower). So more towers would mean more bird kills.

MW numbers came from the http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1a.html" .

I can't tell if the bird kills chart is global or US only; it doesn't specify. The above wind numbers are of course US only and the global total about five times the US total (~120GW)

 

[mgb_phys]

Powerlines are the big killer of raptors and other large wingspan soaring birds, mainly because they hunt over larger areas and in valleys with power lines strung across.
They are also a bit big to be victims of cats!

Windows seem to take out migrating birds that stop off in cities for food.

For some reason telecoms towers seem to get a lot of birds, perhaps because they are lit and attract insects which then attract birds. Or because guy wires and open frame structures are difficult for birds to detect.

 

[Jack21222]

But the problem is that most of the birds killed by wind turbines are ones that are large and scarce.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Do you have a source for that?

Yes go read mgb_phys link. It is in there.

 

[aquitaine]

I don't favor subsidies, but then many fossil fuel industries receive subsidies, and wind turbines should at least get the same breaks.

Ok, how much in the way of direct subsidies do the fossil fuel industries get?

As for the rest - "wastefully", "gobble", "massive", "massively", "fundamentally" - those terms prohibit further discussion unless put in context and compared to something. Otherwise it is just hyperbole.

If it's fact then it isn't hyperbole. Let me ask you this, how much land would it take to get the theoretical equivlent of 1 GW?

 

[mheslep]

Ok, how much in the way of direct subsidies do the fossil fuel industries get?

Google is your friend. In the interest of moving things along see, e.g. for oil:
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-53.cfm?&CFID=1365209&CFTOKEN=66581266

The earlier report examined estimates of potential external costs in economic, military, and environmental categories. It suggested a range of $10-20 billion of plausible annual external costs from oil [per year]

and

the accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about another $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years).

http://article.nationalreview.com/303352/oil-subsidies-in-the-dock/jerry-taylor-and-peter-van-doren

If it's fact then it isn't hyperbole. Let me ask you this, how much land would it take to get the theoretical equivlent of 1 GW?

Well are you asking a serious question for which you don't know the answer? If so I'll do my best to give you an answer, but the question implies an admission that you don't know what might be a 'massive' 'waste'.

In hopes that you can get more out future discussion, let me recommend this PF Mentor's response in another thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2705329&postcount=18

 

[aquitaine]

Well are you asking a serious question for which you don't know the answer? If so I'll do my best to give you an answer, but the question implies an admission that you don't know what might be a 'massive' 'waste'.

I know that it will take "a lot" but for future reference I'd like to know exactly how much that is. I fail to see the relevance of your link.

Google is your friend. In the interest of moving things along see, e.g. for oil:

You made the claim.

 

[mheslep]

You made the claim.

I said fossil fuel energy operators receive subsidies, but no specific claim. Did you really doubt that?

 

[mheslep]

Wind turbine farm land requirements. http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How%20much%20land%20is%20needed%20for%20a%20utility-scale%20wind%20plant" is comparable with others I have seen:

In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment--95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. In California, Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere, wind energy provides rural landowners and farmers with a supplementary source of income through leasing and royalty arrangements with wind power developers.

A wind plant located on a ridgeline in hilly terrain will require much less space, as little as two acres per megawatt.

So a wind farm deployed on existing agricultural land such as the cotton fields of http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html" use ~ 3 acres per turbine. A 1000MW wind farm would then displace 3000 acres of what-would-have-been-cotton, deployed over a total area of 60,000 acres. Such a farm could have been deployed over a larger 600,000 or 6 million acres, but still might have used only 3000 acres of arable cotton plantings.

By comparison, dual nuclear reactor 2000 MWe plants common in the US appear to be laid out on fenced in, keep-out plots of 2-4000 acres.

 

[aquitaine]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

Just so no one gets confused about my post.

[/sarcasm on]

It is not winds fault that it can't provide base load power. You just have to learn to live intermediately. Just like the people in Seattle learn to drop everything when it is sunny outside to do all of their yard work. The new world order of the green movement demand that you change your life. If not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhT7P0lDfI" will be after you.

[/sarcasm off]

 

[mheslep]

So it uses 30 to 60 times more land than a 2 GW nuke plant. But then again at some nuclear plants they have more than two reactors, so to make the equivlent amount of land used is even more than that. Remember when I said "land gobbling" and "massively inefficient"?

No, wind farms do not 'use' land in the way that nuclear plants do.
Take a look here (largest turbine farm) and show us where all the land is gobbled by turbines.
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Wind turbine farm land requirements. http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How%20much%20land%20is%20needed%20for%20a%20utility-scale%20wind%20plant" is comparable with others I have seen:

So a wind farm deployed on existing agricultural land such as the cotton fields of http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2007/nov/texas/slideshow/index.html" use ~ 3 acres per turbine. A 1000MW wind farm would then displace 3000 acres of what-would-have-been-cotton, deployed over a total area of 60,000 acres. Such a farm could have been deployed over a larger 600,000 or 6 million acres, but still might have used only 3000 acres of arable cotton plantings.

By comparison, dual nuclear reactor 2000 MWe plants common in the US appear to be laid out on fenced in, keep-out plots of 2-4000 acres.

To be fair the 4000 acre plant that you are referring to is the Palo Verde complex. Which supplies 3,942 MWe on the grid. It requires much less land (a full third less) then the approximately 12,000 acres comparable wind would need. This complex also has some engineering challenges, because of location, that requires more land then other facilities. It is in the high desert of the USA. Because of the lack of near by cooling water it uses treated waste water for cooling needs. The on site storage pond takes up 80 acres of land.

As another point most of these keep-out plots become mini natural preserves. How can any environmentalist be against that?

 

[mheslep]

To be fair the 4000 acre plant that you are referring to is the Palo Verde complex. Which supplies 3,942 MWe on the grid. It requires much less land (a full third less) then the approximately 12,000 acres comparable wind would need. This complex also has some engineering challenges, because of location, that requires more land then other facilities. It is in the high desert of the USA. Because of the lack of near by cooling water it uses treated waste water for cooling needs. The on site storage pond takes up 80 acres of land.

As another point most of these keep-out plots become mini natural preserves. How can any environmentalist be against that?

I am aware of Palo Verde, but was not referring to it in particular. I agree PV with its four reactors produces a lot of power for its 4000 acres, but then it's fairly exceptional (largest in the US, waste water). If one browses through the NRC plant list, you find most of them sized as I suggested.