Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (15)	1/15/2001 9:31:56 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (15)	1/15/2001 9:53:27 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 312

>>In contrast to this, only a couple of nuclear plants account for 16% of California's power needs. That's TWO plants accounting for nearly 1/5 of the state's entire power needs.<< Even though you may feel it is safe, a significant section of the general public is very afraid of nuclear power. Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl, and now the latest scare over depleted uranium munitions are not exactly good selling points. When was the last time a new nuke plant was permitted in the U.S.? I think the last great hope for nuclear is fusion, but it's a long ways a way. Meanwhile, wind power is breezing thru the permitting process and growing at a 40% annual world-wide rate. Here's an interesting fact: in Minnesota the PUC forced NSP (now merged with Xcel) to build 420MW of wind power as part of an agreement to allow NSP to keep its aging nuke plants running. That's why the Lake Benton installations got built. Anyway, I guess I've said my piece. If I want to keep discussing wind power I'll start a thread about it. My guess is that nuclear power will remain in limbo with no new plants, but a reluctance to shut down the existing plants.