backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 211 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Aug 1 at 8:06 AM


The Dabancheng wind farm in China's Xinjiang province is just one of China's many massive wind projects. China is focusing on bigger turbines for more economical yields.  (Source: Bob Sacha/Corbis)
Red China is seeing green and quickly assuming a role as a world class wind power

The U.S. has invested heavily in developing wind power.  From nation-leading massive wind farms on the dusty plains of Texas to towering windmills being built in a cutting-edge wind park off the shores of Delaware, the U.S. has established itself as a wind superpower.

Only Germany, and thus by proxy the EU, has more wind power capacity than the U.S. However, the U.S.'s chief economic rival, China, is crafting plans to rapidly scale its own adoption to levels never before seen in the world.

In windy Dabancheng, an area in western China dominated by the Himalayan Mountains and strong winds, turbines are being erected forming a massive wind conduit.  The area is fortunate to have one of the strongest on-land wind flows in the world.  Because of this and the strong interest to take advantage of it, it is projected that the area will become the largest wind producing sector in the world by next year.

Over the icy planes 118 massive 1.5 MW turbines spin majestically in the gale.  When the project started, it was a mere experiment intended to power the town of Urumqi.  Now it is expanding its capacity to ship electricity elsewhere. 

And it's not the only wind rich region China is developing -- China also has facilities of equal sizes under construction in Gansu, Inner Mongolia and Jiangsu.  This has resulted in torrid wind power growth of 100 percent a year in China since 2005.  China hopes that with the help of the rapid growth it can achieve its goal of getting 15 percent of its power from alternative energy source by 2020, doubling its alternative energy percentage in 2005.

Not even the government could predict the success of China's wind effort.  China's planners doubled their predictions for 2010 capacity, having reached the goal of 5 GW last year, three years early.  If current growth continues the prediction will again have to be doubled by 2010. 

Junfeng Li, secretary general of the China Renewable Energy Industries Association stated in a paper last month, "China is witnessing the start of a golden age of wind power development, and the magnitude of growth has caught even policymakers off guard.  It is widely believed that wind power will be able to compete with coal generation by as early as 2015. That will be the turning point in China, which by then will be the world's largest energy consumer."

Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council says that China is likely to install more new wind capacity than any other nation by 2010, including the U.S.  He also believes that by 2010 China may pass the U.S. as the world's largest turbine maker. 

He stated, "China's wind energy market is unrecognizable from two years ago, it is huge, huge. But it is not realized yet in the outside world.  A few years ago wind energy was boutique, something to show off to foreigners to prove how green they are but now it is a very serious part of their energy policy.  They can make things happen so quickly in China compared to the west. When they make up their minds, it is incredible how fast things happen."

Last year China reached 6 GW of capacity, with over 202 wind sites.  Azure International, a consultancy in Beijing reports that 445 more sites have been earmarked for development in the immediate future -- Chinese wind business can't keep up with the demand.  Back at Dabancheng, the current capacity is already 110 MW and the company operating the farm, Xijiang Tianfang Wind Power, plans to increase this another 50 MW by November.

The Chinese take great pride in their wind advances.  Li Yanjun, the duty operator at Dabancheng said, "We call it the Three Gorges of the sky. The hydroelectric dam there taps the water, here we tap the wind.  I've been here since the beginning. The turbines are like my children. It took 10 years to reach 64,000 kilowatt/hours because that period was the research phase, but now the government is committed to wind energy so we can grow quickly."

He continued, referring to the large turbines he operates, "This is the future in China.  Everyone is opting for big turbines. It is more economic to have one 1,500 kw turbine than two 750kw turbines and the maintenance costs are lower."

However, the plant is likely to be surpassed by a new facility in Jiuquan which plans to boast 3.8 GW of capacity by 2010.  It will link with other farms on China's expanded national grid. 

Still, the current capacity falls far short of China's coal power production, which supplies 70 percent of the state's power.  Also, one key problem is lack of competition with the wind power being controlled by five state-owned power generation utilities.  Still there are promising signs for China, such as the fact that the turbine industry in China -- typically dominated by foreign manufacturers like Vestas of Denmark, Gamesa of Spain and General Electric (GE) of the US -- saw 50 percent of its turbines domestically produced last year.

The biggest of these Chinese manufacturers is Goldwind, which is based in Urumqi.  It created the turbines for the Dabancheng project.  It creates 1.5 MW turbines competitive with foreign designs and is testing a massive industry leading 3 MW model currently.  It has seen amazing growth of 100 percent or more over each of the last 8 years.

A Goldwind executive, who asked to remain nameless, acknowledged much work remains.  He remarked, "There is still a gap between Chinese companies and western companies in terms of research and development because we started later.  Most of our technology comes from Germany. But in the first half of this year, we bought the company that taught us how to do things. That has solved the problem of research and development. Now we want to start selling overseas."

Goldwind sold turbines to Cuba and is hoping to soon sell to Pakistan, the Philippines and South Korea.  If all goes to plan, Goldwind and other providers may raise China's new capacity to 11 GW this year, with installation almost three times as much as last year. Sebastian Meyer, director of research and advisory at Azure International added, "It is probably going to be the most competitive turbine market in the world very quickly. Elsewhere, it is a seller's market. Now in China, we are on the tipping point of it becoming a buyers' market."

With coal costs rising and China being forced to import coal from Australia, wind is becoming increasingly competitive, however, it is still twice the cost per kilowatt hour as coal.  For that reason China will burn 2 billion tons of coal this year, a third of the total yearly world use.  Also wind capacity is still overshadowed by hydroelectric power, which provides more than 6 percent of the country's power.  Some predict that wind could surpass hydroelectric soon, with some boldly predicting that by 2020 wind will offer 122 GW of capacity, or roughly 10 percent of China's power.

China's rapid rise as a wind power parallels closely to its rise as a global economic force.  Its strong thirst for wind power seems to mark a clear signal that the technology has strong prospects.  Like most things with China, its wind progress represents a competitive challenge to the U.S., but also an opportunity.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty sad that from 202 wind sites, they're getting only 6GW of power. You can easily get that from 2-3 nuclear facilities. Wind power isn't as big a blot on the land as a huge solar installation but still. You need how many hundreds of turbines and how many hundreds of thousands of acres of land to get just the same capacity as a single nuclear facility.




RE: Nice but
By Rob94hawk on 7/29/2008 10:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
True but they need to figure out what to do with all that nuke waste.


RE: Nice but
By noxipoo on 7/29/2008 10:46:15 AM , Rating: 1
bury it in that big mountain they got, duh?


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
The Chinese are fairly reasonable; they may just vitrify it and drop it in the deep sea. Compared to how much natural radioactivity is already present in the ocean, their own contribution will be negligible.


RE: Nice but
By ViroMan on 7/30/2008 3:56:30 AM , Rating: 1
Why vitrify it when it makes a great weapon ammunition and armor plates? Not to mention dirty bombs scare the sh*t out of us Americans.


RE: Nice but
By Strunf on 7/30/2008 5:16:03 AM , Rating: 1
Like if they would even bother with vitrification... straight down the toilet.


RE: Nice but
By acejj26 on 7/29/2008 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 5
Here's a common misconception. How much nuclear waste do you think is formed each year from a large nuclear reactor? 1000 cubic meters? 10,000? A million. Try 3. That fits in your bathroom, with room to spare. And if you reprocess the waste to form new fuel, then that number becomes 1. 1 cubic meter of waste for one year of incredibly cheap and efficient power.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 11:14:24 AM , Rating: 5
> "Try 3. That fits in your bathroom, with room to spare. And if you reprocess the waste to form new fuel, then that number becomes 1"

And your average coal-fired power plant of the same size produces some 2.5 million tons of waste of year, most of which goes straight into the air we breathe.

It's one of the great ironies of life that the so-called "environmentalists" have done more to keep those coal plants running than anyone else in the country.


RE: Nice but
By William Gaatjes on 7/29/2008 2:12:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
> "Try 3. That fits in your bathroom, with room to spare. And if you reprocess the waste to form new fuel, then that number becomes 1" And your average coal-fired power plant of the same size produces some 2.5 million tons of waste of year, most of which goes straight into the air we breathe. It's one of the great ironies of life that the so-called "environmentalists" have done more to keep those coal plants running than anyone else in the country.


+6


RE: Nice but
By CheesePoofs on 7/29/2008 5:47:36 PM , Rating: 5
Please stop mass-labeling environmentalists. It's true that there are some who would support coal over nuclear power, but many (myself included) are strongly in favor of nuclear power over coal (or any other non-renewable energy source).


RE: Nice but
By xphile on 7/29/2008 7:05:47 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah - environmentalists may, or may not be, strongly in favor of, or strongly against, nuclear power, or another form of power, or not, depending on whichever way our wind farm is blowing on a given day.

Don't mass label us, labels cause waste and most are manufactured using plastic 60% derived from oil byproducts - labels are awful and cause cancer, probably; it sure seems to make sense so we've started a new study to back it up; it will be finished in December but we have the results right here: nasty things; killing your kids, and your grandma; sorry what was the question again??


RE: Nice but
By jconan on 7/29/2008 9:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
does n1 know whatever happened to nuclear fusion ITER project? Wasn't that suppose to be safer than nuclear fission and cleaner too with use of deuterium?


RE: Nice but
By drwho9437 on 7/30/2008 1:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
It is still going. I think it is to be online in 2013 or maybe it was 2018, the date is in the wikipedia. I think the pace in that area is very sad, in that it was held up for so long by funding considering the relative costs of things.

ITER isn't going to generate power though, they do hope to have a power gain though they just aren't designing it to capture it. DEMO is the first beta power plant, and that follows ITER, if I live long DEMO might finish before I die, as currently planned which is rather sad. But yeah...

Once oil cost 500 dollars a barrel perhaps people will fund these things more.


RE: Nice but
By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 1:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
See I told you 60% of oil by-products are recycled.

Did you see what I did there. Did you? LOL


RE: Nice but
By Regs on 7/30/2008 9:18:57 AM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't even call them environmentalists. These are likely the same group of people that made water suppliers put nutritional facts on back of their bottles..


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 12:10:19 PM , Rating: 3
I actually didn't know the number. Very good post.

But they don't focus on how much waste. They use the argument that the waste is dangerous for thousands of years to scare people into submission.


RE: Nice but
By teldar on 7/29/2008 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly

The only reactors which produce much waste are the archaic dinosaurs which is what all of the ones in the U.S. are. If we kept up AT ALL with the rest of the world, i'm sure we'd have a significant amount of our power from nuclear AND we would produce less nuclear waste than what we do today.

T


RE: Nice but
By kmmatney on 7/30/2008 2:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Uranium is extremely heavy - 3 cubic meters weighs about 62 tons (if I did my math right - assuming Uranium has a density of 18.9 g/cc ). So the waste is not very large, but it's damn heavy. Of course the waste is probably packaged up and shielded in small batches, so with all the shielding the waste will be much, much larger than 3 cubic meters. I'm a fan of nuclear energy, but they do need to once and for all come up with a plan to deal with the waste material and associated sheilding. I'm not sure why the original plan of using that Mountain in Nevada was such a problem.


RE: Nice but
By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 1:28:26 PM , Rating: 3
> "1 cubic meter of plutonium weighs 19800 kg."

Whoa, whoa...high-level waste contains only small amounts of plutonium. The average reactor produces only about 150-250 kg per year (some designs much less than that). Furthermore, that Pu can be reprocessed out and burned in the right reactor design, leading to no net plutonium production at all.


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 4:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
You act like this waste can just spontaneously explode in a nuclear explosion. It has no environmental effects sitting in a canister in a mountain somewhere.


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
And furthermore, as others have stated, it can largely be reprocessed back into more fuel. That means it ain't waste anymore.


RE: Nice but
By 4play on 7/29/2008 2:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a link for that? I would appreciate knowing it as fact.

Thanks


RE: Nice but
RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 3:44:28 PM , Rating: 1
Doesn't the amount of radioactive waste vary with the size of the powerplant ? (so i guess your 3 is an under estimation) ... I'm not a fan of nuclear power mainly because if there is an accident millions of lives are at risk.
Never mind mentioning that background radiation can only go higher and not lower - which correlates to number of people dying as a result of it.
Also don't forget nuclear power requires Uranium, etc and is not renewable - resources will run out eventually.


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 4:17:50 PM , Rating: 4
Our coal plants already pump way more uranium and radioactivity into the air than all the uranium that's used as fuel by our nuclear plants. I could say a lot more but just read the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Contras...

No nuclear isn't renewable. But estimated reserves are on the order of a thousand years, as opposed to a hundred years or less for oil. It's cleaner and safer than fossil fuels. We should switch over to it until fusion or solar or geothermal becomes viable enough to supply the bulk of our energy needs.


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 6:43:52 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry i don't trust wikipedia - alot of BS and errors in articles, so got anyother more credible sources ? like WHO led studies ?


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 7:29:29 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, just click on the numbers in square brackets after each little factoid in the Wikipedia link I gave. It'll link to a list of references, many of which link back to the original papers or studies, or occasionally sites.


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 8:03:01 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks, didn't know that coal combustion released that much radioactive material. i knew it did release some but wasn't aware of its major impacts.


RE: Nice but
By acejj26 on 7/29/2008 4:28:09 PM , Rating: 4
Perhaps the most uninformed post I've read here. That 3 number is for a LARGE nuclear power plant, which I stated in my post. The amount of radioactive waste varies with the electrical load placed upon it. That being said, 95% of the waste can be reused as fuel.

Modern nuclear reactors have just about no risk of ever melting down. The one incident dissenters like you love to refer to is Chernobyl, where shitty design and horrible maintenance practices led to a meltdown. The new designs have numerous failsafes to make sure that something like that never happens again.

And finally, about uranium being renewable - yeah, we only have about 12,000 years left of it. So I guess that takes nuclear off the table, right? Stop spewing the same rhetoric that environMENTALists love to regurgitate and do your own research. You're worrying about 1 cubic meter of waste annually per plant? How much energy and resources will be used to construct wind and solar power plants of which I'm sure you're a huge proponent? Do we even have enough iron ore for all the steel that would be required to power our civilization? If we do, how much energy would be required to get it all out, convert it to steel, construct the mills, and place them around the country/world? Do that research and then compare it to the relatively few nuclear power plants we would need to construct that would do the job of all those windmills. If you still can convince yourself that wind is the way to go, then at least you're making an informed decision.


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 4:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And finally, about uranium being renewable - yeah, we only have about 12,000 years left of it.

Just to clarify. The ~1000 year figure I gave above is if you don't reprocess the spent fuel. Currently our spent fuel (classified as nuclear waste) still contains 90%-95% of the energy in the original uranium. To get it out, you need to use it as fuel in a different type of reactor via something called reprocessing. Reprocessing is currently banned commercially in the U.S. because the reactor used to do it generates weapons-grade plutonium (which can be used as fuel). If you include reprocessing, you get the ~12,000 year figure.


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 6:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Large ? you know large itself is subjective, something large to you isnt' large to others so define large ... if you said largest nuclear powerstation till date... then that would be less equivocal


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 7:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Found the original source for ya. It's referring to a 1000 MWe nuclear plant (i.e. capable of generating 1000 MW of electricity). Given that nuclear plants run at about 40%-45% thermal efficiency, that would correspond to a 2 - 2.5 GW plant if you choose to use those units instead (though I don't think the power industry uses those units)

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Developm...


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 8:13:08 PM , Rating: 1
i've scim read the article, and it says 30 cubic meters per 1000 MW energy plant. thats just low level solid waste from nuclear power plants.

But powerplant also have 30 tonnes of discharged high level radioactive spent fuel along with 800 tonnes of low and intermediate level radioactive waste.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you missunderstood the article.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 3:24:52 AM , Rating: 3
> "But powerplant also have 30 tonnes of discharged high level radioactive spent fuel along with 800 tonnes of low and intermediate level radioactive waste."

Low-level waste is just that-- anything which has come into contact with radioactive sources at a power plant, and is therefore very mildly radioactive itself. It can include things as innoculous as a pair of gloves or shoe covers a technician discarded after he finished his shift. Most of that waste is less radioactive than natural coal, from the uranium contained within it. So by that gauge, coal-fired power plants release several million tons of low-level radioactive waste each year -- directly into the atmosphere.


RE: Nice but
By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 1:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Large ? you know large itself is subjective, something large to you isnt' large to others so define large


That's what she said

OK I am sorry here but someone had to say it.


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 7:00:47 PM , Rating: 1
Well if your so comfortable living next to a nuclear plant then be my guest, Nuclear power might be the cleanest and cheaper future option - yet people seem to forget its problems

There is no doubt for its contribution to background radiation which is a permanent increase of radiation - which is already high from hospitals, missile test and such sources... The effects might not be instant but it surely has its toll.

And what your saying about waste only 3 cubic meters only takes acount of the fuel involved... you forgot the equipment in contact with the radioactive fuels, those too has to be stored properly.

Oh BTW a nuclear powerstation only has less than about 50 years before a new one is required and the old site can't just be abandoned


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 7:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is no doubt for its contribution to background radiation which is a permanent increase of radiation - which is already high from hospitals, missile test and such sources... "

Let's not spread disinformation here. The average background dose of radioactivity is about 360 mrems/year. Over 80% (300 mrems/yr) of that comes from radon, cosmic rays, biologic sources such as potassium in our diet, etc. That's an average -- if you live in a Rocky Mountain state, your natural dose can be more than double that.

Medical x-rays and treatments generate another 50 mrems/year. Smoke detectors, TVs, and other products, 10 mrems/year.

The dose from nuclear missile tests, nuclear power production, uranium mining, all combined works out to less than 1 mrem/year. About equal to you eating one extra banana a month, from the radioactive potassium found naturally inside.

> "Oh BTW a nuclear powerstation only has less than about 50 years before a new one is required "

Wrong again. The projected lifetime of most designs was 50 years, but many are now expected to last 60+ years. Compared to the 25-30 year lifespan of a large wind turbine, that's very favorable.


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 8:24:59 PM , Rating: 1
thanks for correction of numbers, but it doesn't hide the fact that it does contribute. the background radiation might be low overall but these plants are located far from people, would it not have stronger levels nearby ?
And true that lifetime of powerplant is increasing from what it used to be but what happens to these sites after that particular time - its not like it can be turned into safe use


RE: Nice but
By omnicronx on 7/29/2008 9:04:57 PM , Rating: 3
What doesnt contribute? I live right beside a Nuclear powerplant outside of Toronto. I probably got more background radiation from working at a hospital for 2 years that I ever will from the powerplant.. Get your facts straight, of the average of 2.4MSV per year per person of background radiation, a mere 0.01MSV comes from weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and the entire nuclear industry combined.That means that on average over 99.9% of the yearly radiation you will receive comes from cosmic radiation.


RE: Nice but
By andrinoaa on 7/30/2008 1:06:49 AM , Rating: 3
Well that explains were Homer came from, doh!


RE: Nice but
By Ringold on 7/30/2008 11:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
I have the distinct feeling that if you had a preconceived notion that 2+2=22, then it'd be impossible to dislodge the idea. Virtually everything you've said has been pointed out to be wrong. Some times, you even admit it, and then either repeat a similar claim or squirm around with some other irrelevant point. What a waste of posts.


RE: Nice but
By AlexWade on 7/30/2008 8:03:13 AM , Rating: 3
I live near a nuclear power plant. I live within a 1 hour drive from the Shearon Harris nuclear plant. The plant is being expanded, and I am all for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris


RE: Nice but
By FliGuyRyan on 7/29/2008 10:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously SOMEONE (Ah-hem... James) didn't play Sim City. Because everyone knows that nuclear is an upgrade of coal.

Uh... duh

:rolls eyes:


RE: Nice but
By Andy35W on 7/30/2008 1:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try 3


There's a lot more than that. Where did you get that figure from?

How much waste from a turbine per year though?


RE: Nice but
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 10:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
There's a couple of problems with your argument. It's a non-sequitur. First problem is that you are saying that the world measures it's waste/pollution in size alone. Then you move onto nuclear waste.Do you know less than one millionth of a gram of plutonium (byproduct of spent uranium) is carcinogenic?

In terms of reprocessing, fast reactors aren't online yet, they will help but overall recycling nuclear waste in order to get it down to something manageable is still a couple of years off, some say 2040. We (in the US) don't reprocess nuclear waste, hence why we need a mountain to store this stuff. In the US spent nuclear fuel from a large nuclear reactor is is far larger. Now multiply that by 103 which is the amount of nuclear plants we have in the US and you can see where your bathroom measurement has a reduced psychological impact. Just so you know the size of said nuclear waste in the US is the size of a football field and about 1 foot in depth annually.

I'm struggling to figure out why so many people jumping up and clapping like their in church when the fact that nuclear waste is/could be the size of a "bathroom" is irrelevant. It's RADIOACTIVE... you can't take it home with you. You can't chop it up and put it in your salad. The fact that the byproduct of nuclear energy could be packaged into a analogous Hello Kitty doll provides little solace as playing with said doll makes your hair fall out...

Now taken as a whole coal is more radioactive than nuclear, but that's a slight of hand argument. Coal is more radioactive than Nuclear in terms of human exposure as a direct byproduct of the plant being in use. That's not talking about nuclear waste directly. If you popped the top off of spent nuclear rods your exposure is far more than anything you would get from a coal power plant and you would be dead.

I'm really not saying nuclear is bad. But I'm also not saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread either... at least not at this moment. A little later I can see it being a better alternative even then it's finite and we'll be onto thorium.


RE: Nice but
By JoshuaBuss on 7/31/2008 11:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you popped the top off of spent nuclear rods your exposure is far more than anything you would get from a coal power plant and you would be dead.


Nonsense. Even in high doses you'd need prolonged exposure to suffer any consequences to radioactivity. Besides, no one's popping off the tops of these without proper precaution.. it's certainly better than the prolonged exposure we're subjecting miners of coal and iron to now considering they're NOT wearing radioactive protection.

And yet again though, you're totally missing the point.. out of all the alternatives (coal, solar, wind), the whole process of gathering the materials needed to make the equipment and the byproduct of the actual process of making electricity vs. the amount of electricity generated Nuclear is the clear winner. Living and working around the plants exposes you to no more radiation than you'd get from eating a banana once a month, and certainly less than an X-ray tech or a common hospital worker, and other than the waste (which soon might not be a problem at all) there's absolutely no pollution what-so-ever.


RE: Nice but
By kc77 on 7/31/2008 3:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even in high doses you'd need prolonged exposure to suffer any consequences to radioactivity.
Nope sorry wrong...
Remember there is a distinction between US nuclear waste and what becomes a byproduct in France. There is a difference I suggest you read into it. U.S has far more unreprocessed nuclear waste than any other country. This unreprocessed nuclear waste is primarily plutonium, you know the stuff you make bombs with and is highly radioactive.

I'm not missing the point. I make the distinction between exposure during normal operation and what is possible. Rather than attacking me you should fully read what I was saying. I'm in no way saying that nuclear isn't viable or that overall it shouldn't replace coal. My sticking point is for those who claim nuclear as harmless or a panacea.


RE: Nice but
By weskurtz0081 on 7/29/2008 12:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they could use one of these reactors, but then, what are they going to do with NO nuclear waste and a little glass?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-ne...


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen that technology before in a science magazine. It really is incredible. Practically any trash can be used to produce power. And you get far more energy out than is put in.


RE: Nice but
By weskurtz0081 on 7/29/2008 1:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
It is pretty slick isn't it? It could definitely be put to good use around here, and stop a lot of this nuclear hatred considering there wouldn't be any more nuclear waste. Also, think about all the nuclear munitions than can be run through this thing. Technology is moving right along, now all we need is a way to mass produce synthetic gas/diesel or crude, or find a suitable sub for it.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
> " now all we need is a way to mass produce synthetic gas/diesel or crude"

We already have that ability. It just requires vast amounts of energy, which means without a cheap source of energy, it's not viable.


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 4:51:52 PM , Rating: 1
Funny how nuclear or this type of plant is that source of cheap energy isn't it?


RE: Nice but
By weskurtz0081 on 7/30/2008 12:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I actually know that, it was more of a lead in question, which worked perfectly. I figured one of you guys would chime in....


RE: Nice but
By Hare on 7/30/2008 3:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you get far more energy out than is put in.

BS. You need to google "Laws of thermodynamics". There is absolutely no way to create more energy than you put in a process. That's pretty much the foundation of our understanding of energy.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2008 3:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
BS. You need to google "Laws of thermodynamics". There is absolutely no way to create more energy than you put in a process
You misunderstand those laws. When nuclear processes are added to the mix, the law of conservation of energy becomes conservation of mass-energy, and thus a closed system can, by converting some of its mass into energy, generate more than is originally put in.


RE: Nice but
By Hare on 7/30/2008 11:02:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
converting some of its mass into energy

I'm afraid you lost me. Mass is energy so if a process produces X joules of energy, that amount definately came from the fuel/material involved in the process. You can't create energy from nothing.


RE: Nice but
By JoshuaBuss on 7/30/2008 1:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
no, but with nuclear fission you can create it from mass.

that's why the conservation of energy isn't the governing law regarding nuclear reactors, it's the conservation of mass-enegery like masher said.

some mass and some energy goes in, and a lot more energy and a little less mass comes out


RE: Nice but
By William Gaatjes on 7/29/2008 2:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice indeed.


RE: Nice but
By hadifa on 7/29/2008 8:01:49 PM , Rating: 1
In an annual ceremony, Send it to the Moon!


RE: Nice but
By James Wood Carter on 7/29/2008 8:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
what happens if it blows in mid air ?


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "It's pretty sad that from 202 wind sites, they're getting only 6GW of power. You can easily get that from 2-3 nuclear facilities"

6GW of wind power x wind's normal 30% AF = 2 GW . You can easily get that from a single nuclear facility, as they tend to be available around 90% of the time.


RE: Nice but
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 1:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle...

World's most powerful reactor (not yet built) 1.6 GW. Can you tell me what reactors can reach 2+GW? If all plants were the equal of this one going up in Finland, then you'd be talking about almost 4 reactors.

You guys have often commented that nuclear doesn't require much public funding. However, quite the opposite is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nucl...

You guys really seem to have this belief that nuclear power is completely safe, that the waste is somehow ok to be released into the environment, and that wind and solar are somehow much more expensive. Initial costs place nuclear at 1/2 the cost of wind, but fail to mention the fact that after 50-60 years, they get shut down. It also doesn't consider that there are high ongoing costs for maintenance and running of the plants. By contrast, if China can achieve 10% of its electrical needs by 2020, then in about 120-150 years, it might be able to achieve 100% of its electrical needs via wind, and it will not have to deal with the complications of nuclear waste or having to constantly replace plants every 60 years or so.

In any case, clearly you're overoptimistic about the benefits and even capability of nuclear power. Seriously, do you have any investment in a nuclear facility or a company that makes nuclear facilities?


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 1:33:52 PM , Rating: 3
> "Can you tell me what reactors can reach 2+GW? "

You've confused reactors with facilities. Japan's Kashi-Kari nuclear facility, for instance, produces over 8 GW of power...equivalent to the power ouput of 24 GW of wind turbines.

> You guys really seem to have this belief that nuclear power is completely safe"

Nothing is completely safe, but nuclear power is the safest of all alternatives. Do you really believe there's zero risk from massive spinning blades placed high in the air? Or that the mining and production of millions of tons of steel and concrete is danger-free?

> "Initial costs place nuclear at 1/2 the cost of wind, but fail to mention the fact that after 50-60 years, they get shut down"

End-to-end cost estimates for nuclear power include decommissioning costs.

> "It also doesn't consider that there are high ongoing costs for maintenance and running of the plants"

You're far off base here. Maintenance costs for wind turbines are significantly higher than for a nuclear plant.

> "then in about 120-150 years, it might be able to achieve 100% of its electrical needs via wind"

Not without several quantum advances in power transmission and storage. It just isn't possible to use wind power for more than peak demand reduction at present.


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 4:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case Michael's post isn't clear, most reactors top out at around 800 MW - 1.5 GW. But most nuclear facilities contain 2-4 reactors.
quote:
You guys really seem to have this belief that nuclear power is completely safe,
The only people I've seen here who've claimed anything is completely safe or clean are the people pushing renewables (see below). The pro-nuclear crowd have merely been pointing out that those technologies also carry risk and pollution costs.

On the topic of cost and risk associated with nuclear, it is demonstrably less than the coal plants we currently operate, and in some cases their risk is less than several of the renewables. Which begs the question: why is opposition to nuclear plants so much stronger than opposition to coal plants?

quote:
that the waste is somehow ok to be released into the environment, and that wind and solar are somehow much more expensive. Initial costs place nuclear at 1/2 the cost of wind, but fail to mention the fact that after 50-60 years, they get shut down. It also doesn't consider that there are high ongoing costs for maintenance and running of the plants.

Read the next couple sections of the link you provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nucl...

quote:
By contrast, if China can achieve 10% of its electrical needs by 2020, then in about 120-150 years, it might be able to achieve 100% of its electrical needs via wind, and it will not have to deal with the complications of nuclear waste or having to constantly replace plants every 60 years or so.
So you're claiming wind is completely safe and clean?

A proper comparison isn't just listing the disadvantages of one option, comparing them to having no disadvantages, then claiming that they're unacceptable. A proper comparison is listing the disadvantages and advantages of all options, comparing them, then choosing the one which overall is the best. Often that means that the better option will actually be worse than the alternative(s) within a single dimension of comparison. But overall it may still be the better option.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, China is expanding its nuclear energy base even faster than wind. They intend to boost capacity to 60 GW by 2020, building around 4 new plants each year for the next decade.


RE: Nice but
By 67STANG on 7/29/2008 11:19:31 AM , Rating: 1
202 wind sites using 1.5MW Turbines... It's no wonder the power output is minimal as compared to a 2.5MW Turbine Model...

4 Nuclear plants... that's over $20 Billion U.S. in costs each year for construction. That's enough money to buy over 16,000 2.5MW turbines every year... Kudos to them for having that much money to spend and actually having a government that will allow them to be built. Of course, they don't have idiotic conservationists ruining their country.

But I think they have the right idea. They aren't putting all of their fish in one barrel. They are diversifying their engergy infrastructure-- exactly what we should do.


RE: Nice but
By Icelight on 7/29/2008 11:36:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Of course, they don't have idiotic conservationists ruining their country.


Oh, I'm sure they do, but I bet they have an odd habit of just up and "disappearing" quite frequently.


RE: Nice but
By mdogs444 on 7/29/2008 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if we learn anything from the Chinese...maybe that should be atop the list.


RE: Nice but
By Drexial on 7/29/2008 12:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I'm sure that's the way we should go, I mean what cant we learn from a country that had to shut factories down just so people could see the damned stadium in Beijing.


RE: Nice but
By Ringold on 7/30/2008 12:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
You could learn a lot from such a country. We've blown billions fighting 'global poverty', particularly in Africa. We've achieved nothing in Africa.

Meanwhile, China pulled itself up by its bootstraps, and has reduced poverty by about 400m in recent decades, it's unemployment is shrinking, it's economy is surging, and workers real income (income growth corrected for inflation) is surging to the point where hundreds of millions are starting to enjoy first-world modern luxuries never before imaginable.

In return for economic development of a magnitude never before seen in history, they've got a nasty, but not irreversible, smog problem.


RE: Nice but
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse a conservationist with an environmentalist. Conservationist's just want to use what we have appropriately and wisely. Environmentalists want us to stop using certain things entirely in a false attempt to "save mother Earth".

If anything a conservationist would approve of nuclear power since it saves oil, gas, and coal for other uses. An environmentalist though opposes nuclear power because of "all the waste" and "it will explode killing us all". Neither of which is true.

And to you who always pop up saying, "Would you want a nuclear plant in your "back yard". Damn right I would. Means cheap energy which doesn't have a price that fluctuates over time. All you liberals who live up north might be singing a different tune this winter when your heating bills double. Of course at the same time you'll be whining for the poor to get subsidies so they can pay the bills that you caused to go higher.


RE: Nice but
By 67STANG on 7/29/2008 1:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected, indeed I should have said environmentalists instead of conservationists. Although there is a thin line between the two at times.

While (believe it or not) I am a proponent of Nuclear power, I wouldn't want one in my back yard. Stories like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25821078/ make me cautious about living too terribly close to one.

Can't we figure out a way to make energy through combusting members of the Sierra Club (oh and PETA members too)?


RE: Nice but
By andrinoaa on 7/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice but
By vwgtiron on 7/30/2008 2:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me, after all the empirical data and the overwhelming evidence that nuclear power is at least as viable as the other energy resources here, you have to come up with some lackwitt comment like that? Could you please go back to your cave and hand me your bible so I can start a fire for you?


RE: Nice but
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 1:18:07 PM , Rating: 4
The price of fuel for nuclear plants has increased over time, and is only expected to rise. An environmentalist is just someone who doesn't want to destroy the environment to get a temporary fix. They believe that humans are negatively affecting the environment and many of them believe there are alternative ways in which to achieve a better balance and a smaller footprint. But as the antienvironmentalists say ... nuke the gay whales for Jesus.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 1:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "The price of fuel for nuclear plants has increased over time, and is only expected to rise"

The price for fuel for a nuclear power plant is negligibly insignificant-- nearly all the costs are capital costs for the construction and decomissioning of the plant. The cost of uranium could rise by 500% and it would affect the price of generated electricity by less than 1%.


RE: Nice but
By mles1551 on 7/29/2008 2:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency 6 million tons of uranium could be recovered for less than $59 per pound compared to the current price of around $80/lb

77,000tons per year are currently needed for nuclear reactors.

Thats 80yrs worth at current prices w/o any reprocessing.


RE: Nice but
By Solandri on 7/29/2008 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Total uranium mining for the last several years has barely peaked over 40,000 tons/yr. According to your source, the world has never mined enough uranium to run all its nuclear reactors.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

I suspect there's some sloppiness going on between tons of U235 (the energy-producing kind, about 0.7% of natural uranium, 3% of enriched uranium used in commercial reactors), U238 (the mostly inert kind aka depleted uranium), refined ore (about 70% uranium by weight), and raw ore (varies from 1%-70% uranium by weight depending on location). 77,000 tons of refied ore (yellowcake) sounds more in-line with the above numbers. But it's not directly comparable to 6 Mtons of pure uranium.


RE: Nice but
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 10:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently one big source of uranium (14%), currently, is coming from the USSR's stockpile of nuclear warheads, which supposedly will run dry in 2014. To put that in perspective, Cameco, the world's largest uranium mining company operating out of Canada, supplies the world with 19% of its requirement. The uranium crunch is expected to only worsen as time goes on.

I don't see how uranium is a small expense, since it accounts for nearly 1/3 of the costs of running a plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nucl...

I know you guys have been grinding your axes against government subsidies used to pay for wind power - but these are the exact same subsidies that are given to nuclear reactors! http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfN...

Other things that you might not be aware of, if you continue reading that article, is that the construction of nuclear power-plants routinely cost more than what they're set out to. Then where do you suppose they get their funding from? You know how the phrase goes, as do the nuclear investors when they seek public funds: 'In for a penny, in for a pound'. I prefer, of course, 'throwing good money after bad.'

Now, I'm not an economic major or anything even remotely close to it, but if production of a material is grossly unable to meet demand, then that material is going to increase in cost. There are more power plants being built all the time. Do you really think that's going to solve that issue?

There are so many problems with nuclear reactors. Nonetheless, so many folks believe that the only problem with them are that you've got hippies.

I don't know what ongoing costs are for windmills, but wind is something that we don't have a limited supply of. There are good days and bad days. However, the more wind mills there are around a country as large as China or the USA, the less likely a day of low wind is going to affect energy production straight across the grid. Further diversification into solar, H3 (hopefully this will be in full supply in the next 30 years when some nations start mining the moon - remember kids, there are no hippies on the moon - you anti-environmentalists should then consider moving there where your irresponsible antics won't damage a non-existent ecosystem), and geothermal.

Anyways, here's another grim story about the viability of nuclear powering our computers in the long term: http://www.physorg.com/news123849994.html

Anyways, you guys have really got to update your information. Most of it hasn't been valid in the last 10 years.


RE: Nice but
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "but these are the exact same subsidies that are given to nuclear reactors!"

You've misread your own link. There are no such subsidies given to nuclear power in the U.S.

> "The uranium crunch is expected to only worsen as time goes on."

In whose head, yours? Uranium is far from scarce, even without reprocessing which would increase total energy obtainable by a factor of 10-20. And in 12,000 years or so when we run out of uranium, we can start on thorium, which is 3X as abundant a resource.

> "Anyways, here's another grim story about the viability of nuclear"

Grim? I actually got a nice chuckle out of it. That "analysis" is written by someone with no experience in the nuclear power industry, and who actually makes such silly claims as nuclear reactors contributing to global warming by directly heating the earth. Guess he didn't realize the earth receives 174,000 terawatts of heat energy each day from the sun.

> "but wind is something that we don't have a limited supply of."

You're still ignoring the point that we cannot power the entire country off wind. It can't be done, not without a few quantum leaps in energy storage technology. All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that.


RE: Nice but
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 11:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
You're laughing off known facts about uranium production. Estimates are that as further nuclear production, to meet demand, will need to be increased by 10% every year. The world's supply isn't moving in that direction.

As far as Americans not giving subsidies to nuclear power plants, I found another source which reiterates what I already have read many times: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/...

Now, I know you love nuclear energy. With that comes disbelief when led to facts that so harshly contradict your stance. However, the facts are against the feasibility of using nuclear energy to power America. It also shows the expensive subsidies that Americans have to pay to get the energy.

As far as uranium being scarce, the statistic that I linked to showed a need for 70,000 tons of uranium, while barely more than 40,000 tons are being produced. Sure there's a lot of uranium. Heck, you can distill water and get an awful lot of it.

According to the analysis, nuclear power is incapable of being brought online to meet the demand for energy. Though Japan's foundry will double over the next few years, that's still a maximum of 8 new nuclear facilities per year. They are the only ones capable of doing this, aside from Russia, which hasn't really gotten on top of this demand yet.

In any case, try to be a bit more open minded, and I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion that I have: wind energy is not only better for the environment, safer, but it's also cheaper for generating electricity than nuclear. I don't believe that nuclear should be altogether dismantled, but rather simply that current nuclear facilities be maintained and replaced as necessary.

That paper I linked you to explicitly shows how conservation is the biggest and cheapest method to meet the needs of the US.

In Germany, they're talking about 10,000 GW of electrical output using solar alone. That's the equivalent of about 7,000 super sized nuclear power plants. It's feasible to build these solar plants, while it's completely unfeasible to build 7,000 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power, like it or not, cannot do what we need. Wind and solar alongside conservation efforts and research into new technologies which can tap the huge geothermal reservoir, can.


RE: Nice but
By Keeir on 7/30/2008 12:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pd...

How about you try actual DOE figures? Maybe they are lying?

Nuclear Power receives subsidies for both continued operation and RD into various things.

Current subsidies are 1/10 or less of subsidies given to Wind and Solar (on a per generated watt scale)

On a continuing operation basis, Nuclear is far far cheaper than most fossil fuels. You know, those things wind and solar can't replace?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec3_6.p...

quote:
In Germany, they're talking about 10,000 GW of electrical output using solar alone. That's the equivalent of about 7,000 super sized nuclear power plants. It's feasible to build these solar plants, while it's completely unfeasible to build 7,000 nuclear power plants.


Wow, where to start. Assuming 20% solar efficiency, that roughly covering the ground that 50,000,000,000,000 watts of solar energy falls onto.. (10,000/.2 * 1*10^9 or 5*10^13)

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps/radmonth.php...

According to this Site, in Berlin, assuming optimum angle, the average solar irradiation is 3147 Wh per day per m2. Or roughly 250 W/m2 assuming a 12 hour day. So to generate on average (during daylight only mind) 10,000 GW or power would require 200,000,000,000 m2 (5*10^13/2.5 * 10^2=2*10^11) of land or 200,000 square kilometers (2*10^11/10^6=2*10^5). Hmmm Germany is what? ~400,000 square kilometers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany

So its feasible to cover 50%! or their land with solar panels? I hope you made a mistake somewhere. To output 10,000 GW in Winter would be even worse, not even if the entire country was completely covered with 20% efficiency panels would output top 10,000 GW.


RE: Nice but
By wordsworm on 7/30/2008 1:29:23 AM ,