World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm Opens Today in Britain

The cost for this unreliable useless power is 4 to 15 times the cost of 24/7 dependable nuclear power.

$1.25B for 300MW peak 75MW average works out to $16B/GW for this project. Our similar Cape Wind is 24 cents a kwh going to 34 cents over 15 years.

Wind cost doubles when load balancing and transmission costs are added in.

Wind produces no net energy because of the need to load balance with low efficiency fast spooling gas plant. Better, cheaper, less GHG to build slow spooling high efficiency CCGT plant instead, or even better dirt cheap nuclear..

Current US nuclear cost at $4B/GW is 25% Thanet's $16B/Gw according to both TVA and an MIT study issued last week.

Chinese nuke cost for the same American designed, NRC approved reactors but built by American engineers instead of American attorneys is $1.2 B/Gw and dropping.

Attention! Attention! Radioactive waste! It kills people. You aren't talking about thorium reactors.

You are talking about radioactive waste from medical industrial/nuke weapons or radioactive gas spewing coal and NG plant, I expect.

Nuke power plants eject used fuel rods stored safely on site before being burned to nothing in fast spectrum and molten salt reactors powering the world for hundreds of years. All the worlds used fuel rods would fit on a football field buried 40 feet deep.

"To exploit the molten salt reactor's breeding potential to the fullest, the reactor must be co-located with a reprocessing facility. Nuclear reprocessing does not occur in the U.S. because no commercial provider is willing to undertake it. The regulatory risk and associated costs are very great because the regulatory regime has varied dramatically in different administrations. [15] UK, France, Japan, Russia and India currently operate some form of fuel reprocessing.

Some U.S. Administration departments have feared that fuel reprocessing in any form could pave the way to the plutonium economy with its associated proliferation dangers.[16]

A similar argument led to the shutdown of the Integral Fast Reactor project in 1994. [17] The proliferation risk for a thorium fuel cycle stems from the potential separation of uranium-233, which might be used in nuclear weapons, though only with considerable difficulty."

Proliferation.

sethdayal
It's only cheaper if you let the people of Harrisburg and Tschernobyl pay the real cost. It's called "deferring a problem". I don't know how much Harrisburg and Tschernobyl did actually really cost. But I bet it was more than the difference between the costs of wind vs nuclear power and it won't show up on your electricity bill.

The problem is that you cant put a $-figure on the risks that are involved. Anything that has a lot of potential for destruction is and will always be desirable to some people. And there will always be people who are willing to deliver access for the right amount of money.

Today already nuclear waste is on rails and driven around the country because its cheaper to ship it around than to store it. With every day that this stuff arrives later at it's storage facility the power company makes money. Companies have no conscience, they have only bottom lines. See BP.

You say it's safe. It's not because of human nature.

sethdayal - a tad bit disingenuous of you to imply that new nuclear energy would not also require additional transmission capacity build-out costs. how were the nukes going to get to load?

or to omit the fact that the soonest a new nuke could generate electricity is roughly 20 years from now.

for that matter nukes are politically untenable from an environmental perspective and/or a national security perspective. when was the last time a nuke facility opened? 1979? Sandia Natl Labs, founded to secure nuclear facilities etc - what do you think they are researching these days? you guessed it - smart grid information management/security, and renewables/distributed generation load balancing issues.

Can these wind turbines ever be renewed or are they considered permanent ?
Just wondering because there are the vertical axis turbines which are possibly a better design ...

http://www.thekpv.com
The hybrid electric kinetic powered vehicle

Unbelievable that something like this gets built. Thank you sethdayal for saving me some time and hitting the important points first. Any wind proponents want to argue? Let's go.

slnuke87, your contribution is immeasurable - see above for grist

Onewhiterhino.

-The last nuclear plant opened began operation in 1996 (not 1979).
-The next nuclear plant is scheduled to come online in 2013 (not 2030).

Also: What is a grist?

Erroneous on all counts!

slnuke87

you're correct, the last plant in the US began operation in 1996 - construction began, however, in 1977. I was getting at the time involved in constructing such a facility, at least in the US.

about the 2013 online date, I can only assume that you mean the facility coming online in 2013 in China. China has radically different environmental, labor, and energy facility siting laws; different grid design and load requirements; a crapload of capital; also, they don't need to convince their populace of a chosen energy policy direction. since the original poster used US examples in framing the discussion, I was speaking of the US.

back to the offshore wind, i think it's great if we can efficiently harness existing energy forces, but we disagree i see.

adios

"It's only cheaper if you let the people of Harrisburg and Tschernobyl pay the real cost. It's called 'deferring a problem'."

"Attention! Attention! Radioactive waste! It kills people."

Neither of these things is true. Chernobyl couldn't possibly happen today in the US. Nuclear plants simply *don't work that way.* (And never mind that the oil industry has recently reminded us what a *real* environmental disaster looks like, and Chernobyl doesn't come bloody *close.*)

And I'm terribly curious what statistics you all could point me to on how "nuclear waste kills people." Water kills people if you hold them under it for a bit. Many things *can* kill people. The point is how you're handling it, which, for nuclear materials, is universally going to mean safely and without the chance of exposure.

Basically, you're both buying into a bunch of scare tactics. The decision to create these wind farms, with massive operational costs and consistency issues and, if little ecological impact, still more than that of a nuclear plant, shouldn't be based on "Radiation is scary." It needs to be based on the actual viability of the resources in question.

@Thetom
TMI was the worst possible accident in a post fifites reactor according the principals of science. As predicted the reactor casing was barely scratched. No injuries at all

Chernobyl was a nuclear weapon plant that has nothing to do with modern reactor design. 56 folk died - less than we loose in NG accidents every year.

Nuclear weapons and waste as well as medical/industrial waste are shipped around the county. Nuke power fuel rods are stored on site awaiting recycle.

@thor0997

There are no proliferation issues with reprocessing. It is much easier to build a $10M research reactor to build a nuke weapon. Only the US or Russia have the technical ability to make a nuke from U233 or reactor plutonium.

@onewhiterhino
Nukes are being built in China, Korea, and Japan in three to four years. We used to build them in the US in less than 4 years until Greenpeace attorneys took over the NRC in the seventies.

We can build better airplanes cheaper than the Chinese in the most highly regulated industry on earth. We should be able to compete on nukes after America’s major cost and delay factor the NRC is upgraded to an OECD standard regulator like Canada’s CNSC. We invented the damn things after all.

In the US Vogle just started construction and will be finished in 2016. TVA is building two reactors for 2012 and 2013 service so your twenty years is BULL.

As a replacement for coal the nukes would be scattered all around the country right next door to load centers so- not much need for transmission.

The Repug's love nukes as do 80% of American's according to the latest polling. Politically smart - you bet.

Sandia has a GenIV nuke design ready and waiting for funding.

Cry all you like but wind energy is clean, safe, and it's here to stay.

I'm always very suspicious of the motives of posters that spend all day going from site to site bashing clean energy.

i love greeen, if you dont you are a hater!!! green is cool and it is here to stay!!! GREEN IS CLEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GREEN IS CLEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lame

With a farm this big my only fear is the price of wind plummeting.

"The point is how you're handling it, which, for nuclear materials, is universally going to mean safely and without the chance of exposure."

Not 100% percent.

"And I'm terribly curious what statistics you all could point me to on how "nuclear waste kills people.""

It certainly doesnt make smiles and flowers instantaneously appear!

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml

Screaming "Green is cool" and calling people "haters" only makes you look like a Mind Numbed Unthinking Follow-the-leader Green Groupie Lemming.

A Critical thinker has to ask how the power from these variable wind farms will be integrated into the grid, (Load Balanced).

A Critical thinker has to ask if the Costs of the Wind Farms are truly justified.

A Critical thinker will also not fear Nuclear Power needlessly.

PBO

Green Is Cool!

A few things that everyone seams to forget is that US Nuclear Power Plants have had cost overruns of about 3X their initial cost estimate average. (Around $9B to build) Also where are we to get the fresh water to run the plants? Nuclear uses a WHOLE LOT of WATER to keep the system under control. Where are we going to get that without raising the cost of water or tapping into the ground water that can take 80 years to replace?

Bill all large power plants use cooling. If you want to make irrelevant arguments, there are plenty of better ones to make besides cooling water issues.

@onewhiterino, There are existing plants that were abandoned in the 80s/90s. Construction is resuming on some of these plants, and they're expected to come online in the next 3-5 years. There are also BRAND NEW generation III plants expected to come online in the 2016-2018 time-frame as long as Greenpeace and easily swayed/uninformed Americans don't screw it up too badly.

The article is about wind - not nuclear. There are better places to rant about nuclear power.

However, wind is still very exspensive - meaning the people pay more for power (they likely pay a little bit more on their bills, and the rest secretly through taxes to fund the govt. incentives used to build these things).

Second, as mentioned, wind is unreliable - meaning that dirty fuel is usually still in the mix. So, there will be a second wave of costs in the future, once wind is in place, to establish energy storage plants as well (more $$$ in taxes and on your bill).

Third, clean does not mean renewable. Those turbines have life spans - they produce so much energy over so long, and then the maintainance costs beging to exceed their production (or more efficient tech comes along), so they are scrapped.

So, assuming that a turbin creates more usable energy than it takes to plan, build, install, maintain, and scrap itself - and a profit margin - it will still be generations (of clean power) before the steps to production are not rooted in dirty power. For example - if a turbin, over its life, produced 200% of the energy used to create and maintain it - it is only 50% cleaner than the energy used to put it there.

You know what the problem is this entire argument is bent around money...all i got to say

Interesting, many comments but few make sense. Simply put Wind power solar power are viable alternatives to oil and nuclear. Nuclear waste is produced by many manufacturing processes, thorium reactors can make use of it and in effect burn it up. As for seperating the bomb material from a thorium reactor? Read up on it, it is not currently possible. Personally I think that thorium, reactors may be an effective short term answer for the destruction of nuclear waste. As for real viable power generation, solar and wind power are the best options for power supplies in the forseeable future. The problem isnt just cost, the problem is greed. People set the cost, people control the production, people do the work, people are responsible for greed. If any wish to throw blame on the current system look in the mirror it starts with each one of us.

I'd love to stay and comment but my town is being evaluated due to a malfunctioning wind turbine 50 miles upwind. NOT!

garthog, "As for real viable power generation, solar and wind power are the best options for power supplies in the forseeable future."

I'm sorry but that's just an incredibly inaccurate statement.

If money were not a factor no one would care what was going or what was not going in. I mean seriously do you people really not undrestand how pathetic we are as a race? It all comes down to a something that means nothing? We put monitary value above life and well being. We could get everything we need done if we really wanted to be we use MONEY as an excuse not too. Its pathetic there is no argument or excuse for that you can try all you want.

The cost overruns on American reactors started with the takeover of the NRC by greenpeace attorneys financed by Big Coal. Previously under the AEC - an OECD standard requlator there were few if any cost overruns.

Alright Ghandi take it easy. You're getting pretty idealistic there. Money makes the world go round. That's the way it is.

I think it truely mavelous and Ill tel you why.

Dam the winds dropping and the screens goin..................

"the takeover of the NRC by greenpeace attorneys financed by Big Coal"

Sure. Little green men in suits.

NRC commissioner Peter Bradford a notorious no nuker. Google him - all kinds of no nuke greenpeace nonsense.

@Bill1529 - A person with an agenda can not be a critical thinker.

Of course money makes the world go round. It is not (only) because people are selfish, but because money = resources and resources are finite.

Could we pool global money and make wind power sufficient to provide all that the world needs? Sure. But if doing so takes so many resources (money) that the average person can no longer afford bread, then that clean energy means nothing.

If you want to be perfectly green, dig a hole and bury yourself. Up to that point, you will be a CO2 spewing, resource consuming, lifeform.

All energy production is going to consume resources - entropy cannot be overcome - even by wind and solar. Clean energy is good when it extends resources and thus the lifespan of the planet's resources.

It is not good when its implimentation instead consumes more than it can reasonably produce (for example, consuming the worlds supply of various rare earth metals).

So, yes, it is all about money - as money is the measure by which all things (including you) can be rationally compared.

@sthdayal - the Peter Bradford that retired 28 years ago?

Wind (and Solar) power is the only future, for three simple reasons:
It's fuel supply is endless, it is free and harvesting it is completely harmless to the environment.
That's it. There is simply no argument on earth to top these.

Critics often claim other sources as being 'more efficient', but how can something which runs on FREE fuel be less efficient than just about anything else?

How can something which runs on extremely toxic substances be 'better'?

How can something which requires entire landscapes to be turned over and polluted be 'cheaper'?

To argue against wind and solar power to me is as futile as arguing against water being a good source of hydration.

"Learn to Live & Live to Learn"
Alexander von Humboldt

@greeniscool
yup that Bradford he's still at it somewhere in Vermont. Close to a million Americans died from coal pollution because of that dumbass. He was part of a team that is still at it.

Two things that people always fail to consider when thinking about wind farms:

1. The cost of fertilizer.

2. The time it takes for the crop to become mature enough to start producing fruit.

@delkomatic- money is a stand in for other resources. You can trade labor for food, clothing etc directly but much more difficult. We figured out a long time ago a stand in in the various forms of money was better. Who would build the wind farms if you weren't paying them? slaves? so would that be an improvement of the "pathetic human race"?

I think what you are pushing for is a global commune pot where everyone draws out what they want and need and only that. where a benevolant government allocates resources benevolantly. where there is no hunger greed sunburns or puppies beaten. sorry there is no such political idealogy to be had. The closest thing we ever had starved tens of millions of their own people to death. sorry.

@QIII your on fire tonight, two comments, two laughs.

to me it seems if you have a modest sized home and want to power it with renewable energy then solar and wind would be fine for the individual use. So maybe you guys are right that the cost and energy used to create these massive wind farms are just a little off. I assume they don't last forever and will need to be replaced and maintained pretty often. I want a small home with solar panels, and a few little wind turbines and see where that gets me. These companies should start investing their time into manfacturing pre fab homes that come with their own renewable energy source. I believe in 100-200yrs every home will look pretty much the same. each home should have its own liitle nuclear power plant. that would be cool.

@JPnyc @drinny26
Wind and Solar last twenty years so the capital cost per annum (like a mortgage payment) is a hundred times the cost of uel for a nuke plants. The free fuel is meaningless.

A Wind and solar regime impossible even on paper would destroy hundreds or thousands of sq miles swathes of American wilderness. Using San Onofre's 3 nuke plants carrying 5 GW on 84 actres storing all its waste in safe container storage, nukes would supply all American power needs on 65 sq miles. All that nuke waste would eventually be burned in gen iv reactors.

Rooftop solar is close to 50 cents a kwh on the average america roof

Wind is 24 cents a kwh in an ideally located wind farm (Cape Wind) Rooftop wind has such bad resource on that average that it is pointless.

Tennessee Valley Authority has new nuke power at 5 cents a kw hr and with Chinese advances will drop to 3 cents shortly.

wery nice thanks

http://www.turkcet.org

The next nuclear plant to enter the grid in the U.S. (Watts Bar 2) is scheduled to come online in 2012, although 2013 might be a better estimate.

Green power -

A forest, cut using hand tools, burnt to produce electricity, and replanted. CO2 neutral, high employment, renewable, and the only by-product (ash) is good for fertilizer. All CO2 produced is absorbed by the next generation of trees. The only downside - the number of Earths it would take to grow that many trees.

Obviously, humans consume the Earth - metals, minerals, fuels, etc at rates that increase beyond sustainability. Eventually, we will run out of everything (or one thing absolutely critical to life).

Wind is only as renewable as the rare earth metals used in their production. Solar is only as renewable as the surface area and material used.

A truely non-stick surface that resisted crustaceons would make tidal the solution, a solar cell with a 100 year lifespan, a battery which could hold the power of an entire grid to regulate output while accepted punctuated input. Blah, blah, blah. We are not to any of this yet - and industrialization on a national scale does not get us there.

National research funding does more than a cost negative PR construction.

Plama arc combustion of trash is still on the table as well.

Everyone worried about nuclear energy has spent way too much time out in the Sun.

You guys do realize that you live under a nuclear reactor, the reactor that gives everyone life. Everyone constantly gets radiation burns from this reactor. Pretty painful when you exceed a certain dosage of radiation burns in a given period. Apparently somewhere around 10,000 people a year here in the US die from radiation caused cancers every year. And all you guys are worried about something that has never happened. Talk about wasted energy.

Deron.

Our parents enjoyed electricity 24/7/365, as we do now.
But not for much longer.

By their support of the green religion, Britons need to prepare their children to accept less:
Less comfort.
Less prosperity.
Less employment.
Less food.
Less travel.

Less freedom.

Unless they are stopped, the greenies will bring a third world future for us all -- a self-fulfilling prophesy of dark hopeless dystopian poverty for the masses.

And it seems that Popular Science is supporting this massive surrender of prosperity for our children.

Why?

@Deron- The sun is a giant FUSION reactor, not fission like the ones here on Earth

@Popsci- Going green is truely an admirable concept but it is fundamentally flawed. Sure the energy is renewable but the materials used in the construction of which are not as abundant. Wind and solar are, at thier core, unreliable and no ammount of support and bandwagoning is going to change that.

I am not a pure nuke proponent but now that reactors exist that can burn the spent fuel of other reactors, I dont see why the question is even still on the table. Nuclear Energy is the way to go until the FUSION riddle is thoroughly worked out.

Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
the retreat winter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individuality, the fashion,
the sex appeal, mature you start from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: Recently,
every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
Vietnam which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
welcome to :====== http://www.newgoing.com/ ====
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
fda

http://www.erotizmx.com
http://www.sevismeizle.net
http://www.fk5.net
http://www.webturka.net
http://www.sicakadult.net

The old fear mongering of the past hasn't proven out. It's now beyond 50 years that nuclear power plants have operated safely. The statistical facts are that workers in nuclear facilities have fewer accidents and health issues than most any other profession, blue collar or white. Coal mining accidents and other related risks kill over 6,000 people a year.

As has been stated, Chernobyl is a poor example to use as a benchmark. It had no containment dome and had graphite components that burned and spewed radiation. Add to that, they had the Keystone Cops running the joint. Our own accident, Three Mile Island was really a success story. Though a terrible accident (meltdown), the containment dome did it's job and no appreciable radiation was released. Even as awful as Chernobyl was, the death toll was in the hundreds, not even approaching the annual deaths from many other related industries. And life is flourishing around Chernobyl 25 years later.

Spent nuclear fuel is stored in dry casts that can withstand extremely violent collisions and any natural disaster, and will eventually become a national treasure when we decide to reprocess. It was Jimmy Carter's non-proliferation act that stopped what other countries are successfully undertaking.

I'm all for investigating other forms of energy production, but wind and solar are currently far too inefficient to come close to supplying the enormous base load power requirement that the world needs.

http://www.kerhanee1.com
http://www.oonlineizle.com

Kevin Wilson,
Windfarms Warm The Planet

The Earth cools itself via the latent heat of evapouration. This is why you feel cold as you exit the swimming pool.

Therefore the upstream footprint of any windfarm turbine will be subject to a reduction in the
latent heat index. Most likely the difference in the latent heat of evapouration index will be directly
proportionate to the energy extracted by the turbine.

Kevin Wilson