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

[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.