Mar 31, 2012 -- 7:05PM, teilhard wrote:

Here in Minnesota, e.g., we are among the TOP States in Wind-Power Generation (along with California, Texas, and Iowa) ...

The PROBLEM is that the "Wind Farms" are necessarily located where the WIND blows reliably frequently dependably, which is unfortunately a good long Distance from our Population Centers ... So we have LARGE Amounts of (idle) CAPACITY, and a Public RELUCTANT to allow those huge crackling Power Lines in THEIR Neighborhoods ...

The Solutions AREN'T so simple as just to use more of those funny twisty Light Bulbs and buy more efficient Toasters ...

Oh, it's worse than that.

You can't count on the wind blowing when you need the power.

You need to keep generating capacity to operate when the wind isn't blowing, which is generally fossil fueled.

The backup generators don't get to run on an efficient duty cycle because they have to shut down when the wind is blowing....

... unless it is blowing too much, in which case the wind turbines have to shut down to avoid damage, and you need your backup systems again..

... which are less economically efficient because you only use that investment when they are doing the work, not all the time.

... and after all is said and done it is 15-20 times more expensive than the same power from hydro-electric or nuclear sources, which has a knockon effect, damaging the entire economic fabric.

Apr 2, 2012 -- 7:25PM, d_p_m wrote:

....And yet, zero radiation casualties. Not one death. That's pretty good for the second worst nuclear power accident, don't you think?

No. As with other power plant accidents; there is a huge chunk of land that is, for all intents and purposes, uninhabitable forever.

Nuclear power is probably the safest form of generally available power.

Not really... but I don't care. It is the dirtiest and the most expensive.

Apr 2, 2012 -- 7:43PM, d_p_m wrote:

You can't count on the wind blowing when you need the power.

That's why you use several kinds of generation, not just one. It's not a black and white issue. It does not have to be all wind or all coal or all anything. It must be a combination.

First off, MM, it seems kind of odd to be on opposite sides of a debate here... :)

Thanks for the costing on wind power. That's about what I thought, but I didn't want to overstate my case.

This is a complex issue, and I don't think I can lay out my entire position in one message, nor am I totally sure the best place to start, as there are so many factors involved. I'm going to just have to start somewhere, so if I leave some questions unanswered at first, I may be about to get to them a bit later.

Unfortunately both popular culture and the popular media tend to wax hysterical over things nuclear, in a feedback loop. People are scared of anything with 'nuclear' in the name.

As well, we have a notoriously poor, proven, abiliity to evaluate low probability risks. People worry about terrorism and aircraft accidents, while not really being bothered by much more likely risks like car accidents, and falling in the bathtub.

Add to that partisan 'cost analysis' (when people are against something, they look at the costs and largely ignore the benefits, and when they are for something they tend to look at the benefits and ignore collateral costs), and the waters can get very murky indeed.

Another factor is the relatie newness of nuclear power technology. The NPD demonstration reactor commissioned in 1962, and the actual commercial plant at Pickering only went into service in 1971... nine years after NPD, and 41 years ago. In other words, it has been in service for 4.5 times the accumulated experience when it was turned on, and it had to be designed and built before that.

As a result, judging nuclear power by currently operating plants is a little like judging the usefullness, cost efficiency, and safety of air travel by open cockpit wood and wire biplanes.

The forty year old Fukushima plan is a generation II reactor. Current designs are (depending on method) generation 4 to 6. Think of Fukushima as being a more advanced biplane with more reliable engines, better navigation instruments and a closed cabin. Still not representative of what we can do today, let alone future capabilities.

Remember, aircraft took the better part of a century to go from accidents waiting to fall from the sky to the safest form of long range travel. Nuclear power is getting there - but most of the current plants are 30-40 years old... and correspondingly primitive. The plants we can build today are more like the all metal monowing turboprops of the 1950s, or maybe the four engined piston powered all metal airliners of the late 1940s and early 50s. Much better, but still not what they will be.

One of the more interesting designs is the thorium fuelled reactor, which can be made inherently safe, has a much higher total burnup of fuel, and which can be used to burn up spent waste from light water reactors.

And most likely there develop a "most economical" Mix ...

E.g., Wind Farms tend to located out-on-the-Prairie far from Population Centers, but closer to major Agricultural or Forestry Areas ... So most likely eventually the surplus Wind-generated Power can/will be used to power Industries that convert Ag-Waste and other bio-Mass into solid or liquid portable Fuels ...

Etc. ...

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:42PM, d_p_m wrote:

First off, MM, it seems kind of odd to be on opposite sides of a debate here... :)

Thanks for the costing on wind power. That's about what I thought, but I didn't want to overstate my case.

This is a complex issue, and I don't think I can lay out my entire position in one message, nor am I totally sure the best place to start, as there are so many factors involved. I'm going to just have to start somewhere, so if I leave some questions unanswered at first, I may be about to get to them a bit later.

Unfortunately both popular culture and the popular media tend to wax hysterical over things nuclear, in a feedback loop. People are scared of anything with 'nuclear' in the name.

As well, we have a notoriously poor, proven, abiliity to evaluate low probability risks. People worry about terrorism and aircraft accidents, while not really being bothered by much more likely risks like car accidents, and falling in the bathtub.

Add to that partisan 'cost analysis' (when people are against something, they look at the costs and largely ignore the benefits, and when they are for something they tend to look at the benefits and ignore collateral costs), and the waters can get very murky indeed.

Another factor is the relatie newness of nuclear power technology. The NPD demonstration reactor commissioned in 1962, and the actual commercial plant at Pickering only went into service in 1971... nine years after NPD, and 41 years ago. In other words, it has been in service for 4.5 times the accumulated experience when it was turned on, and it had to be designed and built before that.

As a result, judging nuclear power by currently operating plants is a little like judging the usefullness, cost efficiency, and safety of air travel by open cockpit wood and wire biplanes.

The forty year old Fukushima plan is a generation II reactor. Current designs are (depending on method) generation 4 to 6. Think of Fukushima as being a more advanced biplane with more reliable engines, better navigation instruments and a closed cabin. Still not representative of what we can do today, let alone future capabilities.

Remember, aircraft took the better part of a century to go from accidents waiting to fall from the sky to the safest form of long range travel. Nuclear power is getting there - but most of the current plants are 30-40 years old... and correspondingly primitive. The plants we can build today are more like the all metal monowing turboprops of the 1950s, or maybe the four engined piston powered all metal airliners of the late 1940s and early 50s. Much better, but still not what they will be.

One of the more interesting designs is the thorium fuelled reactor, which can be made inherently safe, has a much higher total burnup of fuel, and which can be used to burn up spent waste from light water reactors.