Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Wind farms - ugly truths

1192022242547

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?
    Can you even see Fukushima from outside the exclusion zone ?


    Solar takes a lot of room. But you can mix and match. At low density in fields livestock use them for shelter.

    A wind farm only needs the plinth and access roads. The remaining areas can still be used for whatever. Airplanes need huge separation distances and wide corridors, and they are noisy, but life continues below them. Motorways take up less space but you can't use them for anything else.


    All moot because wind farms and nukes are put in areas of low population density and away from prime tourist areas.

    Doubly moot when you realise how much agricultural land is set-aside. Over 1.2 million acres. http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/setaside.cfm
    In 2006 there were approximately 500,000 hectares of land in set-aside. This represents an area of countryside about 70km by 70km, about twice the size of the area enclosed by the M25 around London.

    And that's not counting unproductive land or roofs or the long mile alongside motorways.

    And pretending that no land is used for uranium mining or processing or disposal.



    The big problems with nuclear are that you can't do it quickly and you can't do it on the cheap.

    Renewable prices are still falling , the UK has slashed subsidies yet again.
    Anyone know how much Hinkley C will get in subsidies ?
    Anyone know if renewables subsidies will end before nuclear ones ?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    doolox wrote: »
    Wind energy is not always available when it is needed. Power supply systems will have to build in a comprehensive system of power storage to accommodate time of calm or when the wind energy is not enough to meet immediate demand.

    It is hard to know if existing forms of energy storage such as batteries will cause more CO2 emissions in their manufacture than simpler forms of demand reduction.
    Forget batteries for anything other than very short term storagel, and AFAIK in many cases that's more for frequency stability than serious power. Total global battery installations per annum are about the same size as the planned compressed air energy storage project in Norn Iron.

    Storage is and for the foreseeable future will be hydro. Mostly in the form of not using the water already behind the dam yet, with a very small proportion of pumped storage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Great photos - what would the result be if they were taken the other way round ? ( the sun is behind the nuclear plant so it's kind of in silouete - the sun is facing the the wind turbines so they kind of shine - )

    Aside from that-the wind farms have a base of a few square meters if concrete,and after 20/25 years they can easily be removed and recycled-or refurbished .
    40 plus years down the line it won't be so easy with the nuclear station -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts




    A wind farm only needs the plinth and access roads. The remaining areas can still be used for whatever. Airplanes need huge separation distances and wide corridors, and they are noisy, but life continues below them. Motorways take up less space but you can't use them for anything else.


    All moot because wind farms and nukes are put in areas of low population density and away from prime tourist areas.


    And pretending that no land is used for uranium mining or processing or disposal.




    Renewable prices are still falling , the UK has slashed subsidies yet again.
    ?

    You need to get out more if thats your opinion of wind farm planning this country. Set back from housing is still a mere 500m despite the size of wind turbines nearly quadrupling since that regulation came. Wind developers in this country think nothing of chancing their arm when it comes to sticking wind farms here there and everywhere as the number of court cases and disputes around the country prove. Meath and Kildare are hardly low density rural areas and yet wind companies like Element want to build dozens of wind farms all over them. How can you faith in a system that allows this kind of thing on fragile peatlands - and its far from an isolated example

    http://www.irelandaerialphotography.com/aerial_photos/f5_3035_keeper-hill-tipperary-landslide.html

    As for the subsidy cut in the UK - the industry is of course up in arms about this attempt by the government there to reign in the spiralling cost of this pig in a poke

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33227489

    Plus its no accident that UK solar developers are putting pressure on the Irish government to extend REFIT to solar now that the days of easy money in the UK are coming to an end, therby threatening their business models.

    PS: Solar panels are fine on roofs, I would have a problem with large solar farms sterilizing large tracts of farmland in this country. Raises a lot of question that apply to biofuels, like loss of food production and natural habitat. Plus solar would be even less usefull than wind when it comes to meeting peak power demands such as cold dark winter evenings


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Markcheese wrote: »
    40 plus years down the line it won't be so easy with the nuclear station -


    How many conventional plants have been shut around Europe on the back of wind/solar energy?? Germany now depends heavily on coal to keep the lights on despite the massive spend on wind/solar. Highlighting the stupidity of ditching Nuclear


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Can you even see Fukushima from outside the exclusion zone ?


    ?

    How many Fukushima type accidents have there been in Europe or even worldwide?? No body in France must get a wink of sleep with all the worry on that one!!:rolleyes: No evidence of any deaths from Fukishima in Japan either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    SeanW wrote: »
    Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?


    Don't forget also that wind farms take up much more land to produce a certain amount of power than nuclear power plants.

    Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the most sense.

    Don't forget that we still haven't figured out a way to safely dispose of the waste from nuclear power plants.
    Casting them in glass and burying them is our best solution to date, which leaves behind a deadly underground legacy for future generations that we hope they will have the time, money and know-how to deal with.
    Aside from the fact that Nobody (Race, creed, country, culture, locality etc.) wants to be anywhere near nuclear waste, it is toxic and unsafe.

    Nuclear power plants also require very specific geographical locations (available land, abundant water supply, isolation and clearance distances from populated areas, good transport and energy network infrastructure, wind farms need....wind everything else they need can be done with conventional technology and infrastructure.

    After decades of choosing options that make the future predicament worse, I think its about time as a species we took some responsibility for the planet. Windmills and solar farms are largely removable and recyclable aside from the footings and piles we found them on. which makes them much more sustainable for the long term.

    Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the least sense.

    Key to the whole discussion is putting renewables in context, it suits coastal areas with prevailing winds. Thats where they belong, there is no point putting them in rainforests. Solar farms belong in the tropics, or areas that have reasonably high levels of direct sunlight. The areas that have these attributes should be the development grounds for renewables, not areas that are borderline. National interests need to be put aside in the long term in order to address global energy needs and sources.

    But it will never happen. corporate interests, greed and corruption will keep the handbrake on until its too late.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭Jim Martin


    Just can't understand why everyone needs to find such complicated problems all the time - it's quite simple, just get the world to use less energy, problems solved!


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    PS: Solar panels are fine on roofs, I would have a problem with large solar farms sterilizing large tracts of farmland in this country. Raises a lot of question that apply to biofuels, like loss of food production and natural habitat. Plus solar would be even less usefull than wind when it comes to meeting peak power demands such as cold dark winter evenings
    How much land are we "sterilizing" with set-aside at present ? We already have enough un-productive land.
    With renewables it could be used instead of having to be subsidised by city dwellers who rarely get to see the country side. *

    * http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33628747
    Families need an annual income of at least £45,000 to be able to enjoy the natural beauty of their environment.

    According to a report, less than half of people living in social housing felt they had the same access to beauty in urban or rural areas.



    Biofuels and loss of habitat ?
    Yes palm oil is a complete disaster if you drain swamps, but here stuff like willow copsing would create habitats.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    How many Fukushima type accidents have there been in Europe or even worldwide?? No body in France must get a wink of sleep with all the worry on that one!!:rolleyes: No evidence of any deaths from Fukishima in Japan either.
    I've posted before on this.

    France is just luckier. Until recently a lot of their plants had more than one reactor and the backup plan was power from one reactor would provide cooling power for the other. The upgrades are costing a fortune.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138392366526910 Like I keep saying you can't do nuclear on the cheap. One reason is the cost of repairs and updating safety features later on. Look at Korea and US for lots more examples. Also apart from Finland no one has a realistic long term repository or have trimmed back on the budgets or shyed away from the politics.

    Also had the nuclear industry paid more attention to this incident then Fukushima needn't have happened. The primary problem was the sea wall wasn't high enough to cater for historic floods at the site. Then they lost most of the backup systems.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood


    Also France , EPR, on time , on budget :p

    And this year there are lots of jellyfish around. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    How many conventional plants have been shut around Europe on the back of wind/solar energy?? Germany now depends heavily on coal to keep the lights on despite the massive spend on wind/solar. Highlighting the stupidity of ditching Nuclear
    Germany is phasing out coal.

    Most of the older 25% efficient plants have been shutdown. The newer ones are working at 45% or so. So more power for less fuel and less CO2 .

    The real casualties from renewables have been pumped storage plants because renewables have reduced number of days they could command a price premium.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Germany is phasing out coal.

    Most of the older 25% efficient plants have been shutdown. The newer ones are working at 45% or so. So more power for less fuel and less CO2 .

    The real casualties from renewables have been pumped storage plants because renewables have reduced number of days they could command a price premium.

    I thought pumped storage was the dream with renewables- I know it's only short term storage-
    So are cheap gas turbines (something like open cycle ?) the main balance for renewables ?( that and smart meters ! )

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Jim Martin wrote: »
    Just can't understand why everyone needs to find such complicated problems all the time - it's quite simple, just get the world to use less energy, problems solved!

    #PassiveHouse !!!

    but the Irish Govt does not want councils to insist on this - actually they are looking to use the planning regulations to specifically ask councils not to adopt the Passive House standard !!

    My house uses electricity @ 200L of oil equivalent to heat it for the whole year the house we used to rent (which was smaller) used 2500L of actual oil


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    How much land are we "sterilizing" with set-aside at present ? We already have enough un-productive land.
    With renewables it could be used instead of having to be subsidised by city dwellers who rarely get to see the country side. *

    *s.

    Setaside no longer exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Germany is phasing out coal.

    Most of the older 25% efficient plants have been shutdown. The newer ones are working at 45% or so. So more power for less fuel and less CO2 .

    The real casualties from renewables have been pumped storage plants because renewables have reduced number of days they could command a price premium.

    Not true - German emmissions rose steadily between 2009-13. Dropped slightly last year on the back of a very mild winter. Coal is still the major power source.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transition_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany-energy-mix.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Jim Martin wrote: »
    Just can't understand why everyone needs to find such complicated problems all the time - it's quite simple, just get the world to use less energy, problems solved!

    Our energy polices are shaped by vested interests - simple as. REFIT money should be going on energy saving measures for business and households instead of into the pockets of developers and speculators.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    I've posted before on this.

    France is just luckier. ;)


    Well thats me convinced. How about the Czechs, Finnish,Chinese, Indians etc?? Can you provide a body count for these countries??:rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Well thats me convinced. How about the Czechs, Finnish,Chinese, Indians etc?? Can you provide a body count for these countries??:rolleyes:
    remind us all how the Finnish EPR is getting on.

    Or about the Indian reactor that Enron had down on it's books as an asset.

    Look at how many fake parts the Koreans had in their reactors and let's hope the Chinese haven't had a similar thing happen.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Well thats me convinced. How about the Czechs, Finnish,Chinese, Indians etc?? Can you provide a body count for these countries??:rolleyes:
    More from France. It's another topic I keep harpin on about. Nuclear isn't reliable and needs to be backed with gas or hydro. At least wind is resonably predictable days in advance.
    http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/french-prompt-power-prices-bullish-on-low-renewables-26195130
    "Another one of the nukes tripped, there's not too much wind," a trader said. "It's pretty bullish."

    ...
    EDF shut down its 880-MW Fessenheim-1 nuclear power reactor in an unplanned outage Friday morning, the latest data from grid operator RTE showed. Although the reactor is currently scheduled to return to service Saturday morning, the 905-MW Chinon nuclear reactor is unlikely to reach full capacity until Tuesday.

    In addition, the 915-MW Cruas-3 reactor is also unavailable to the grid following an unplanned shutdown Thursday, according to RTE data, and is unlikely to return until the end of September.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Can you even see Fukushima from outside the exclusion zone ?


    Solar takes a lot of room. But you can mix and match. At low density in fields livestock use them for shelter.

    A wind farm only needs the plinth and access roads. The remaining areas can still be used for whatever. Airplanes need huge separation distances and wide corridors, and they are noisy, but life continues below them. Motorways take up less space but you can't use them for anything else.


    All moot because wind farms and nukes are put in areas of low population density and away from prime tourist areas.

    Doubly moot when you realise how much agricultural land is set-aside. Over 1.2 million acres. http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/setaside.cfm

    And that's not counting unproductive land or roofs or the long mile alongside motorways.

    ?

    Fukushima is one of 430 reactor worldwide. It is highly hardly representative. Wind farms industrialise landscapes. I don't mind them in low land agricultural pasture but they should not be accepted in uplands or anywhere of high biodiversity. What is the use in staving off a certain amount of climate change if we have to destroy the environment in the process.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    robp wrote: »
    Fukushima is one of 430 reactor worldwide. It is highly hardly representative. Wind farms industrialise landscapes. I don't mind them in low land agricultural pasture but they should not be accepted in uplands or anywhere of high biodiversity. What is the use in staving off a certain amount of climate change if we have to destroy the environment in the process.

    Does 1 or 2 wind turbines per sq km ruin a habitat ? Doesn't prevent the ground around the turbine plinth ( a few sq m) from continuing to be used as it was-
    That's not to say wind turbines should be unthinkingly placed anywhere-
    Actual pollution good (air, water-toxic emissions) - visual pollution ( in some eyes) bad - it spoils my view -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    robp wrote: »
    Fukushima is one of 430 reactor worldwide. It is highly hardly representative. Wind farms industrialise landscapes. I don't mind them in low land agricultural pasture but they should not be accepted in uplands or anywhere of high biodiversity. What is the use in staving off a certain amount of climate change if we have to destroy the environment in the process.
    Climate change IS destroying the environment, far more than any side of wind.
    Wind turbines affect the scenery, in some peoples opinion.

    Nuclear isn't a solution to climate change. Construction takes too long. Payback of the enonomic, energy and carbon investment won't happen for a very long time, if ever.

    You talk about industrial landscapes, here in Ireland it's pretty much a case that if isn't oak forest it's an artificial landscape. Thousands of years of farming tales a huge toll on nature.


    Yes F. is one of 430 reactors worldwide. But I've posted of problems in lots of them. Belgium, Japan, Germany, France, and Korea have multiple reactors offline for diverse reasons. It just isn't predictable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Climate change IS destroying the environment, far more than any side of wind.
    may be - but what impact are wind farms in the overall scheme of things actually having (please included embedded damage which was caused in installing them)
    Wind turbines affect the scenery, in some peoples opinion.
    I think you miss the point - many people are concerned about the noise impact - 40 turbines visible from the house - the nearest at 1.3km have very significant Amplitude Modulation and a tone around 168Hz which is very penetrating and not within the predictions of the planning permission but the CC are doing v little to resolve.

    IF properly installed and performing as predicted I believe more would accept but its the total lack of proper post implementation control which is of major concern


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Climate change IS destroying the environment, far more than any side of wind.
    Wind turbines affect the scenery, in some peoples opinion.

    .


    This assumes plastering the countryside with windfarms and pylons will significantly shape the worlds climate. Very little evidence for that as already discussed on here especcially when cheaper and more effective options and strategies are availiable in terms of energy effieciency etc. Plus you see the heavy ongoing reliance of the likes of Germany on coal despite a massive spend on wind power.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Does 1 or 2 wind turbines per sq km ruin a habitat ? Doesn't prevent the ground around the turbine plinth ( a few sq m) from continuing to be used as it was-
    That's not to say wind turbines should be unthinkingly placed anywhere-
    Actual pollution good (air, water-toxic emissions) - visual pollution ( in some eyes) bad - it spoils my view -

    Many wind farms in this country have been installed on fragile upland peatlands(which are themselves important Carbon stores) causing much damage when you take account of the building of new roads, pylons and substations across the bog to service them. This destroys these peatlands ability to sequester CO2 and indeed they will release much CO2 after drying when drained for large windfarm projects. Also the issues of landslides and damage to importart water catchement as I highlighted all ready. There is also the the issue of significant amount of toxic waste produced in the manufactor of wind turbines. The enormous toxic lakes left behind from rare earth metal mining in China being a case in point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    You talk about industrial landscapes, here in Ireland it's pretty much a case that if isn't oak forest it's an artificial landscape. Thousands of years of farming tales a huge toll on [/QUOTE]

    Artificial landscape is not the same as industrial landscape.

    I would not qualify Irish agriculture, forestry, and even at a stretch quarrying (in my area anyway !) as industrial.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    There is also the the issue of significant amount of toxic waste produced in the manufactor of wind turbines. The enormous toxic lakes left behind from rare earth metal mining in China being a case in point.
    Rare earths aren't rare. most other countries just bought off China because it was cheaper to let them (mis)handle the waste.

    Isn't it just that one triangular lake in China ?

    And it's nowhere near as bad as the runoff or byproducts from uranium or coal mines.

    You don't need rare earths for wind, it's just a little more efficient to use pernenamt magnets, if it was a lot more efficient then they'd be used in more power stations.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    This assumes plastering the countryside with windfarms and pylons will significantly shape the worlds climate. Very little evidence for that as already discussed on here especcially when cheaper and more effective options and strategies are availiable in terms of energy effieciency etc.

    From Yes Minister
    This is a question from a Religious Studies paper.
    "Which do you prefer - atom bombs or charity?"

    Even maths is politicised.
    "If it costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences
    "and £75 a year to feed a starving African child,
    "how many children could be saved from starvation
    "if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

    That's easy. None. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons.
    Same is true about spending on insulation vs. power stations or on public transport vs. electric car chargers. We should be rolling out insulation especially because it benefits those living in poorer housing and the excess winter mortality figures from here are shocking compared to our continental neighbours, a direct saving on health costs in addition to energy ones.

    The answer is that unless govt policy changes a lot they will only look at a smaller part of the picture. For example they could have rolled out fibre to the home for a about the cost the NRA wasted spent on the third lane's on roads that aren't used because Irish drivers don't drive on the left. That would have replaced a lot of car travel with tele-commuting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,308 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    How many Fukushima type accidents have there been in Europe or even worldwide??
    How many 10 meter high waves have hit Europe recently? Let alone one that is the product of two waves?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭SeanW


    The remaining areas can still be used for whatever.
    Let's see, what can we use land occupied by windmills for.

    Residential? No, people don't want to live near the things.
    Tourism? No, for the same reason as the above - even though they have to be put in scenic areas (mountaintops, beaches etc).
    Bird sanctuary? No, because wind mills kill birds by the million. Very green.
    Bat sanctuary? No, because wind turbines are up there with White Nose Syndrome as an existential threat to world bat populations.
    How about horse breeding grounds? Can't do that, the bloodstock industry warns it could be in existential danger if windmills are not kept away from their stables and horse roaming lands.
    How about bank branches? Can't do that either because the locals would have to rob the banks to pay for subsidies. :p

    Seems like a terrible waste of 250,000 (or 130,000 with solar panels) acres just to avoid a single nuclear power reactor.

    By contrast, the entire Chernobyl exclusion zone is only 642,560 acres across three countries, and foliage and wildlife is making good use of it. Still this is less than the land needed to build enough windmills to avoid 3 Hinkley Cs. Bats are probably safer in Pripyat than they are in Southern Germany.
    And pretending that no land is used for uranium mining or processing or disposal.
    Nothing like the infographic I showed of the massive waste of land. You are of course also ignoring the land take of various fossil fuel plant types (and their associated mining etc) especially natural gas which the environmental movement seems to tacitly approve of. 250,000 acres of windmills or 130,000 acres wasted on solar panels to replace one nuclear reactor is just a down payment, especially if farmed energy crops are the backup. Though you could use the land between the turbines for energy crops ...
    Renewable prices are still falling , the UK has slashed subsidies yet again. ?
    According to the Guardian, it's an attempt to "totally kill" the solar panel industry and "lead us all to fracking hell". Aparently, the Tories slashed the solar subsidies because they're evil, greedy money-grubbing monsters that want to kill the planet, for kicks and giggles. Or something. Nothing whatsoever to do with the technology being cost-effective. Oh and the big winners, supposidly, will be the gas (and nuclear) industry. Who the environmental-leftists on here have been tacitly cheerleading as renewables backups. Still, more likely I think they just saw the cost and thought "this is not justifiable".
    Germany is phasing out coal.
    Despite driving their energy costs into terms comparable with Niue and the Solomon Islands and other tiny island chains so miniscule and out in the middle of nowhere that most have ever heard of them, Germany has also singularly failed to put more than a dent in its fossil fuel use. As shown previously by another poster, coal still makes up more electricity use than all the renewables combined. Heck even nuclear makes up a goodly portion still.

    France meanwhile has 90+% non-fossil energy supply. And 1/3 the electricity prices.
    remind us all how the Finnish EPR is getting on.
    So no body count? It was wise of you to duck the question, because like everything else, the facts are not in your favour. By Terawatt Hour, nuclear power is the safest form of energy. Nukes kill 0.04 persons per TW/H produced. By contrast, solar kills 0.4, and coal, 161 persons per TW/H.
    Deaths-per-TWh-of-power-produced-vs.21.png

    The death toll from the catastrophe at Fukushima remains at 2: the crane operators that died when the earthquake shook their crane. You are literally 10 times more likely to die falling off a roof installing a solar panel than you are to die because of the production of the same quantity of nuclear electricity.

    And that's including the monumental clusterf*** that was the Soviet nuclear programme.
    Climate change IS destroying the environment,
    So you keep telling us, while you simultaneously object to the only form power generation that can ameliorate climate change and help any compentently run country kick its addiction to fossil fuels. I don't dispute Anthrophogenic Climate Change, but the constant cheerleading for fossil fuels, gas, etc makes me think the people shouting the loudest about Anthorpogenic Climate Change don't really believe it.

    I cannot in good conciense get behind a mainstream environmental anti-ACC campaign while said environmental movements continue to oppose useful anti-ACC technologies they should support, for the same baseless, supersitious, agenda-driven non-reasons as they've been doing since the 1950s. I cannot in good conciense support something that's going to needlessly damage human life styles for no good reason, nor support a strategy that is doomed to blow up in our faces in the most spectacular fashion, causing far more damage to our world than the problem it's trying and failing to solve.
    Wind turbines affect the scenery,
    People don't want to live around wind turbines. Birds die hitting the damn things, and bats just have to get into the general vicinity for their lungs to explode because of barotrauma. BOOM. Another dead bat. They effect more than just the "scenery" in the areas they infest. Oh and they also need hundreds of miles of HV transmission line.
    Nuclear isn't a solution to climate change. Construction takes too long.
    Bet the environmental movement was saying the same thing 10 years ago. Thing is, if Western Europe had started a nuclear programme in 2000-2005, we'd be reaping the benefits by now at the latest.
    Payback of the enonomic, energy and carbon investment won't happen for a very long time, if ever.
    France. 90%+ non-fossil. 7th cheapest electricity in Europe. Sounds like the payoff is there for the taking.

    Germany meanwhile has only 42% non-fossil power, 38% of which is nuclear that they want to decommission. They also have among the most expensive electricity in the world. And the least stable power grid.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



Advertisement