The Case for Nuclear Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Case for Nuclear Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (15)	1/15/2001 9:31:56 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) of 312

>>But even with a 1 megawatt-hour wind turbine, you'd need 2,500 of the buggers in order to produce the same amount of power as a medium size nuclear plant.<< This is a useless comparison because a nuke plant costs much more than a wind turbine. It's like arguing that a watermelon is better than a grape because it is bigger. >>Furthermore, apparently the operating life of these turbines is only 13 years as compared to the 40-60 years for a nuclear facility(with recertification). I can only imagine that salt exposure on those Danish windmills will diminish their operating life as well.<< The Danes are planning 4,000MW of offshore wind turbine capacity with a life span of 50 years. The machines are protected against the salt environment. The winds are steadier offshore, so the reduced turbulence causes less wear on the mechanical systems than land-based machines. >>It seems that even with 13,000 wind turbines operational in California, it only accounts for 1.5% of their energy requirements.<< Most of those machines are much smaller than the modern 2MW behemoths. Here's a write-up on the Lake Benton wind farm... Curse of the Wind Turns to Farmers' Blessing nytimes.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next