Comments - Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-29T07:19:51Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A160829&xn_auth=noFrom December and really unkn…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-02:4401701:Comment:1608862019-03-02T15:52:56.911ZLong Islanderhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LongIslander
<p>From December and really unknown to most Mainers thanks to sins of omission from the Maine press:</p>
<p></p>
<h3 id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12793"><span class="subject" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12792" style="font-size: 14pt;" title="All six Maine land based wind project bids rejected by State of Connecticut">All six Maine land based wind project bids rejected by State of Connecticut…</span></h3>
<div class="base-card-body" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12823"></div>
<p>From December and really unknown to most Mainers thanks to sins of omission from the Maine press:</p>
<p></p>
<h3 id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12793"><span class="subject" title="All six Maine land based wind project bids rejected by State of Connecticut" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12792" style="font-size: 14pt;">All six Maine land based wind project bids rejected by State of Connecticut</span></h3>
<div class="base-card-body" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12823"><div class="msg-body inner undoreset" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12697"><div class="email-wrapped" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12822"><div id="yiv3719858626"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12821"><div style="color: #000; background-color: #fff; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1551535987465_12820"><div id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64399" dir="ltr"><a rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/all-six-maine-onshore-wind-bids-rejected-by-connecticut-yesterday" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64461" name="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64461">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/all-six-maine-onshore-w...</a></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64413"></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64414">and</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64462"></div>
<h1 id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64452">Nuclear wins big in Connecticut clean energy competition</h1>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64535"><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64534"><a rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" href="https://ctmirror.org/2018/12/28/nuclear-wins-big-clean-energy-competition-not-just-millstone/" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64533" name="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64533">https://ctmirror.org/2018/12/28/nuclear-wins-big-clean-energy-compe...</a></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64536"></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64621">and</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64537"></div>
<h1 id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64523">Lawmakers Overwhelmingly Vote To Modernize US Nuclear Fleet</h1>
<div id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64603"><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64602"><a rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" href="https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/22/congress-passes-modern-nuclear-power-bill/" id="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64601" name="yiv3719858626yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1546271786330_64601">https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/22/congress-passes-modern-nuclear-p...</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> A four minute segment from t…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-02:4401701:Comment:1607742019-03-02T05:50:22.060ZLong Islanderhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LongIslander
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1242284847?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1242284847?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p>A four minute segment from the 2/28/19 telecast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on this subject. The guest is Michael Shellenberger.…</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1242284847?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1242284847?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>A four minute segment from the 2/28/19 telecast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on this subject. The guest is Michael Shellenberger.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=81&v=5v8ZPil4wbs" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=81&v=5v8ZPil4wbs</a></p> Nuclear a Rational Approach t…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-01:4401701:Comment:1605872019-03-01T19:24:00.359ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>Nuclear a Rational Approach to Reduce CO2 than Wind and Solar</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational-way-forward-than-wind-and-solar" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational-way-forward-than-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>As a more rational alternative, the world should build 200,000 MW of nuclear plants each year.</p>
<p>A large part of the world’s fossil…</p>
<p><strong>Nuclear a Rational Approach to Reduce CO2 than Wind and Solar</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational-way-forward-than-wind-and-solar" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational-way-forward-than-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>As a more rational alternative, the world should build 200,000 MW of nuclear plants each year.</p>
<p>A large part of the world’s fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions would be reduced.</p>
<p>Nuclear typically requires only about one half acre of site area per MW, i.e., 200,000 MW would require about 100,000 acres. Solar, wind onshore, and wind offshore would require 84, 612 and 980 times as much area. See table 3A</p>
<p>That would require far less grid work than hooking up all those wind and solar plants.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-various-energy-sources" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-various-energy-sources</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>No futuristic, expensive, energy-guzzling, short-lived batteries would be required.</p>
<p>No microgrids would be required</p>
<p>No islanding would be required</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Within 20 years, nuclear generation would be 20 x 200,000 x 8766 x 0.90 = 31,558 TWh/y </p>
<p>Capital cost about $1.0 trillion/y, at $5000/kW. See Note.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>World generation was about 25,551 TWh/y in 2018.</p>
<p>World generation likely would be about 40,965 kWh/y 20 years from now, at growth of 2.5%/y.</p>
<p>The world would have 31558/40965 = 77% of all electricity from nuclear, just as France has today. See Appendix</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE: France has CO2/kWh about ten times lower than Germany had in 2018. See Appendix</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-frances-2016" target="_blank">https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-frances-2016</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE:</strong></p>
<p>Korea is building a nuclear plant with four APR1400 units, on about 2000 acres, for $24.4 billion, or $4360/kW, at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates, UAE.</p>
<p>The plant will provide 25% of UAE electrical generation.</p>
<p>The plant is designed to last 60 years.</p>
<p>The plant, operating 24/7/365, will have an 18-month fuel cycle, refuel for one month, and repeat the cycle</p>
<p>The plant production could be 60 y x 5600 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.90, capacity factor = 2651 TWh after 60 years</p>
<p>This can be repeated all over the world.</p>
<p>The world would need to place on line 200000/5600 = 38 of such plants each year for 20 years to achieve 77% of all electricity from nuclear.See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE:</strong></p>
<p>- The world has been spending about $250 to $300 billion/y on wind, solar and other renewables for at least 20 years. World CO2 emissions have <strong>increased</strong>during that time and since COP21 in Paris in 2015.</p>
<p>- The world would need to immediately start spending at least $1.5 TRILLION/y for at least the next 50 years to bend the CO2 emissions curve down per Paris COP21 targets. The likelihood of that happening is near zero.</p>
<p><span><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-ipcc-co2-emission-reduction-goals-and-required-annual" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-ipcc-co2-emission-reduction-goals-and-required-annual</a></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Comparison of Area Requirements of Nuclear, Wind And Solar</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>A Barakah-type nuclear plant produces 84 times more electricity than solar, 612 times more than onshore wind, and 980 times more than offshore wind <strong>per acre</strong>. See table 3A</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It would be lunacy to inflict the environmental damage, including damage to remaining fauna and flora, resulting from covering the world with wind turbines and solar panels, that would produce variable, intermittent electricity, that would be totally dependent on the vagaries of wind and sun, and that would require 1) gas turbine plants for peaking, filling-in and balancing and/or 2) TWh-scale battery systems.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Table 3A compares production and area impacts of various energy sources. On a given area, nuclear would produce 84, 612, and 980 times more electricity than solar, wind onshore and wind offshore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-various-energy-sources">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-various-energy-sources</a></p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Table 3A</p>
</td>
<td><p>Nuclear</p>
</td>
<td><p>Solar</p>
</td>
<td><p>Wind, onshore</p>
</td>
<td><p>Wind, offshore</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td><p>Barakah</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Capacity, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>5600</p>
</td>
<td><p>400.00</p>
</td>
<td><p>27.45</p>
</td>
<td><p>11.43</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Period, y</p>
</td>
<td><p>60</p>
</td>
<td><p>60</p>
</td>
<td><p>60</p>
</td>
<td><p>60</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>h/y</p>
</td>
<td><p>8766</p>
</td>
<td><p>8766</p>
</td>
<td><p>8766</p>
</td>
<td><p>8766</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Capacity factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.90</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.15</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.30</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.45</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Site area, acre</p>
</td>
<td><p>2800</p>
</td>
<td><p>2800</p>
</td>
<td><p>2800</p>
</td>
<td><p>2800</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Area/MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.50</p>
</td>
<td><p>7</p>
</td>
<td><p>102</p>
</td>
<td><p>245</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Lifetime production, TWh/60y</p>
</td>
<td><p>2650.8</p>
</td>
<td><p>31.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>4.3</p>
</td>
<td><p>2.7</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Production, TWh/1000 acre</p>
</td>
<td><p>946.728</p>
</td>
<td><p>11.271</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.547</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.966</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Times</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>84</p>
</td>
<td><p>612</p>
</td>
<td><p>980</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table> reposted on Facebook. Excell…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-01:4401701:Comment:1605852019-03-01T19:00:25.396ZPenny Grayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/PennyGray
<p>reposted on Facebook. Excellent.</p>
<p>reposted on Facebook. Excellent.</p> The sole reason for our carbo…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-01:4401701:Comment:1607372019-03-01T16:38:56.656ZWhetstone_Willyhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WhetstoneWilly
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The sole reason for our carbon tax is to bring you to heel. 99% of scientists agree that assessing tread wear of shoes is an effective method of reducing your CO2 exhalations. With our climate change indoctrination programs in the schools, media and Hollywood, we hope this will be a shoe-in at some point soon.…</span></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1237788337?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1237788337?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The sole reason for our carbon tax is to bring you to heel. 99% of scientists agree that assessing tread wear of shoes is an effective method of reducing your CO2 exhalations. With our climate change indoctrination programs in the schools, media and Hollywood, we hope this will be a shoe-in at some point soon.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1237788337?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1237788337?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>