Japan to replace nuclear plant with world's largest wind farm

Jan 18, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Wind Farm
Nysted wind farm in the Baltic Sea off Denmark. Photo by Jeremy Firestone, University of Delaware

(Phys.org)—Officials in Japan have announced plans for building the largest wind farm in the world, ten miles off the coast of Fukushima – site of the nuclear disaster that followed the earthquake and tsunami that struck the island nation in 2011. Projections call for developing a wind farm capable of producing 1 gigawatt of power.

In the aftermath of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, the Japanese government has turned away from nuclear power and the dangers it possesses and towards other . The country plans to eventually shut down all of its and replace them with wind and . To that end, plans for wind farm construction have taken center stage, with this newest the most ambitious yet.

Currently, the largest wind farm in the world is off the coast of Suffolk in the U.K. Called the Greater Gabbard farm, it produces 504 megawatts of power using 140 turbines. The new farm planned for Japan is expected to produce 1 using just 143 turbines.

Instead of anchoring each turbine directly to the ocean floor, the plan is to mount them on floating steel frames that will be anchored to the continental shelf below. To keep them upright, ballast will be used underneath. The plans also call for using 2 megawatt turbines, each standing 200 meters high. The site was chosen due to the existing infrastructure that had been used to transport power from the Daiichi plant before its destruction.

Fukushima prefecture has stated its goal of becoming 100 percent energy self-sufficient by the year 2040. In addition to the wind farm, plans are also being drawn up for the biggest solar farm in the country.

The wind farm will be paid for using money currently being collected via a feed-in tariff scheme for set up by the government – it became effective July 1, 2012. Thus far, its inception has boosted energy produced by such plants, the Japan Wind Power Association says, by 8.2 percent already.

Construction of the huge wind farm is expected to be complete by 2020. Project managers say that sufficient testing has been done with the design to ensure the new farm will not be harmed by earthquakes, tsunamis or typhoons.

Explore further: ASU grant aims to transform global energy landscape

Related Stories

Iberdrola builds huge wind farm in US

Mar 05, 2012

Spanish energy giant Iberdrola has completed one of the world's biggest wind farms in the US state of Ohio, which will produce more than 300 megawatts of power, it said on Monday.

Japan firms plan wind farm near Fukushima: report

Feb 14, 2012

A group of Japanese firms led by trading house Marubeni Corp. plans to build a large floating experimental wind farm off the coast of Fukushima prefecture, which was hit by a nuclear disaster last year, a ...

Germany's first offshore wind farm begins turning

Apr 27, 2010

The blades began turning at Germany's first offshore wind farm Tuesday, 45 kilometres (28 miles) off the coast in the North Sea, with 12 turbines producing energy for 50,000 households.

Recommended for you

Should the Japanese give nuclear power another chance?

35 minutes ago

On September 9, 2014, the Japan Times reported an increasing number of suicides coming from the survivors of the March 2011 disaster. In Minami Soma Hospital, which is located 23 km away from the power plant, ...

UK wind power share shows record rise

3 hours ago

The United Kingdom wind power production has been enjoying an upward trajectory, and on Tuesday wind power achieved a significant energy production milestone, reported Brooks Hays for UPI. High winds from Hurricane Gonzalo were the force behind wind turbines outproducing nuclear power ...

Global boom in hydropower expected this decade

7 hours ago

An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce ...

User comments : 112

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Going
3.7 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2013
Even if a tsunami destroys the whole wind farm that won't render the surrounding area uninhabitable for up to a century. You can just rebuild.
pokerdice1
3.4 / 5 (19) Jan 18, 2013
The Japanese have my utmost respect. Even in the face of disaster they are keyed to progress. Can we do so well in the US?
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (25) Jan 18, 2013
Editors, I think someone has punked you. Or you have decided to do comedy instead of science (as I've always suspected).

No sane person would think an offshore wind farm is a sane response to a Tsunami.

"The wind farm will be paid for using money currently being collected via a feed-in tariff ..."

Translation. Poor people pay for it. And get no electricity.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (28) Jan 18, 2013
"No sane person would think an offshore wind farm is a sane response to a Tsunami." - NotParker

No sane person would try to sell the Japanese people more nuclear reactors to replace the ones that have contaminated their homes. And no sane person would show up again on this forum after denouncing global warming a hoax with such conviction when the entire scientific community is in agreement that global warming is real and man-made. It's you that is not sane, because the humiliation of being so wrong would make a sane person disappear.
Steven_Anderson
2.3 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2013
They would be better served using a wave energy harvest farm I would think unless their waters are generally calm. As far as I know a tsunami in this area is not a very rare fluke. Correct me if I am wrong.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (23) Jan 18, 2013
Ha ha. Even Hansen admits warming stopped for 10 years.

"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade "

http://reason.com...dmits-ma

"The majority of towns and cities in Japan hosting nuclear plants have said they would agree to the reactors being restarted"

http://rt.com/new...ies-467/
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2013
@NotParker No sane person would think an offshore wind farm is a sane response to a Tsunami.
Why do you claim that? Offshore wind farms are largely immune to tsunamis
"The majority of towns and cities in Japan hosting nuclear plants have said they would agree to the reactors being restarted" http://rt.com/new...ies-467/
The article you linked later reads:
"The previous government, led by Yoshihiko Noda, had promised to phase out nuclear energy in the next three decades. The majority of the Japanese public has called for the end of or significant reduction in the number of nuclear plants."
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2013
"The previous government, led by Yoshihiko Noda, had promised to phase out nuclear energy in the next three decades. The majority of the Japanese public has called for the end of or significant reduction in the number of nuclear plants."- from the article cited by NotParker

Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2013
You beat me to it, Kochevnik, (maladietz).
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2013
Due to the need for large areas, wind farms will also cause a huge environmental impact on wildlife.
Shootist
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2013
The Japanese have my utmost respect. Even in the face of disaster they are keyed to progress. Can we do so well in the US?


Why would we want to?

Drill here, drill now.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2013
"The previous government ...


Who cares.

The new government will restart some or all of the reactors and even plans to build more.

http://www.japant...8a1.html
jonnyboy
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2013
good luck with those wind farms, i am anxiously awaiting the results of this fiasco.
Shelgeyr
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2013
If this article is true, then pity the Japanese. In their grief they've lost their collective minds. This will be the sunset of the land of the rising sun.

Tangentially related - here's xckd's "log scale" cartoon regarding fuel energy density. I love this picture:
http://xkcd.com/1162/
djr
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
Shelgeyr: "If this article is true, then pity the Japanese. In their grief they've lost their collective minds"

So does this also refer to the Chinese, the Koreans, the Europeans, Brazil, and even good old U.S.A. http://cleantechn...or-2012/

Oh that is right - you know better than all of these countries who are making crappy policy decisions - shame they all did not consult with you - I am sure they had no data to support their decisions. Sheeshhhhh
praos
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2013
Dead thanks to radiations in Fuku (courtesy of nuc loby and worst earthquake in Jap history)= 0
Dead thanks to unecessary panic evacuations (courtesy of green loby) = 600 to 900
Dead thanks to wind farms (investment in new drugs reduced by feed-in tariffs for wind farms) = probably many thousands
People are idiots, nothing new in this.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2013
Even if a tsunami destroys the whole wind farm

Tsunamis only grow really tall when they get close to shore.
http://en.wikiped.../Tsunami
Tsunamis have a small amplitude (wave height) offshore, and a very long wavelength (often hundreds of kilometres long, whereas normal ocean waves have a wavelength of only 30 or 40 metres), which is why they generally pass unnoticed at sea, forming only a slight swell usually about 300 millimetres (12 in) above the normal sea surface. They grow in height when they reach shallower water, in a wave shoaling process


So siting this ten miles off shore makes perfect sense.

wind farms will also cause a huge environmental impact on wildlife.

What wildlife is out there - exactly?
Tassie Mike
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013

What wildlife is out there - exactly?

Ban all wind mills they kill an occasional bird !
There are fools and damn fools -- and they all drive cars and the road kill matters not because they "Have to be there!"
Hypocrites all -- if you protest windmills then scrap your damn car !
alfie_null
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
No sane person would think an offshore wind farm is a sane response to a Tsunami.

NotParker is ignorant of how tsunamis work. Such hubris. If it were me, I'd be embarrassed.
Uzza
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
I'm surprised nobody caught the glaring error in their numbers.
The plan is for the wind farm to produce 1 GW using 143 turbines, but then according to the plan, they're only supposed to be 2 MW each.
I don't know about everyone else, but 143*2 = 286 MW, not 1 GW.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2013
'm surprised nobody caught the glaring error in their numbers.

Accorind to this site
http://www.mitsub...308.html
Only the first one will be a (test) 2MW generator. The others will be 7MW generators.
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
To put things into perspective, this largest windfarm will produce around one tenth of energy Fukushima nuclear plant produced.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2013
Maximum output of Fukushima Daiichi was 4.7 GW. (So it's not one tenth but more than one fifth...check your numbers before having your sockpuppet post BS)

Projected cost for the windfarm: 261mn dollars (we may well calculate with a triple cost overrun - because that's the norm in Japan)

But compare that to the 74 to 250 BILLION dollars the cleanup for Fukushima Daiichi will cost (depending if you take conservative or more complex estimates)

You get the picture. You can build a LOT of windfarms for that kind of money.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
I think the wind farm is able to produce a peak of 1GW but not continuously, because it is an intermittent energy source, not always available.

"Wind-generated power is a variable resource, and the amount of electricity produced at any given point in time by a given plant will depend on wind speeds, air density, and turbine characteristics (among other factors). If wind speed is too low (less than about 2.5 m/s) then the wind turbines will not be able to make electricity, and if it is too high (more than about 25 m/s) the turbines will have to be shut down to avoid damage."
source: wikipedia / Intermittent_energy_source
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2013
Due to the need for large areas, wind farms will also cause a huge environmental impact on wildlife.
Luddites Willieward and NoParker are feral environmentalists on the subject of windmills, and squanderist pillagers when nuclear power and coal are at stake. Hypocrisy doesn't seem to trouble corporatist pundits.

Sadly for them, birds can learn to avoid windmills just as they adapted to life in the cities. Even people need to adapt. A few seagulls can adapt for a good cause.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
Due to the need for large areas, wind farms will also cause a huge environmental impact on wildlife.

And this matters for off shore windfarms exactly...why?

Even on shore: Japan is 80% rocky area unsuitable for farming. Every country has ample land that is unsuitable for faming. And you can even build windmills ON farmland: The footprint of an individual windmill is next to nothing. Just google for aerial views of windmills
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QdPggKwRqsM/SL9bVFyOQ0I/AAAAAAAAAak/eeHnoEVtsw4/s400/20071029200206_no_019.jpg

Look at this and tell me with a straight face how this takes up 'large areas'.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013
And you can even build windmills ON farmland
Windmills reduce wind erosion, which is the largest threat to long term farm land sustainability. That also benefits birds
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013


Ban all wind mills they kill an occasional bird !


"Between 6-18 million birds and bats are killed by Spanish wind farms each year"

Species that have survived 10 – 20 ice ages are being driven to extinction by wind farms and environmentalists.

http://www.kcet.o...ion.html
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2013
Most windfarms operate at 20% or so capacity, but quite often drop to zero.

Take a look at the yearly output of all UK wind farms. The system is capable of 5GW, but rarely stays there. This week, when it is supercold in the UK it is near zero.

http://www.gridwa...r.co.uk/

How many wind farms will make up for 50 Japanese Reactors?

Even 10,000,000,000 wind farms would not be able to do it. Because power out drops to zero quite regularly.
GRLCowan
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
On April 2, 2012 the English-language version of The Mainichi acknowledged that the Japanese government had benefited financially from its refusal to allow nuclear power stations to restart. Its income had increased 4.8 percent, even while other sectors of Japanese society had got poorer, because it was getting the royalties on LNG imports, total price near $16/MMBTU, instead of $0.25/MMBTU uranium.

So one should suspect tokenism in any putative replacement of nuclear plants' output by other carbon-free plant.

This offshore wind plant seems to fit the bill, promising to replace only one-tenth the output of the plant its name is linked with, and being, at this moment -- and very likely forever -- not real.
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 19, 2013

Why would we want to?

Drill here, drill now.
-Shootist

Shill baby shill. At least your sockpuppet NotParker provides biased information instead of bumpersticker nonsense.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013
"To help protect bats, Criterion plans to turn the turbine blades parallel to air flow when wind speeds are low and when bats are most likely to fly, between sunset and sunrise in late summer and early fall. They estimate that this change will save an estimated 50 percent of bats without losing significant power. Criterion will also take steps to help cave-dwelling bats elsewhere by building cave gates in eastern Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia."- Audubonmag.org

The means of protecting species will progress as technology advances. A nuclear disaster will not support ANY life at all. The future is grim for many Fukushima residents who will contract radiation-related cancers despite Japanese government propaganda. The Japanese who want to restart the reactors suffer economic hardships and would rather risk radiation poisoning tomorrow than dying of starvation today. It's not out of rational decision making but out of sheer survival.
GRLCowan
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2013
"The future is grim for many Fukushima residents who will contract radiation-related cancers ..."

Science has no clue as to whether that will happen -- to a minute, untestable extent -- or whether, as the hormesis fans believe, the cancer rate will be minutely and undemonstrably reduced.

"... despite Japanese government propaganda ..."

Oh, so the Japanese government isn't profiting from the supposed Fukushima fear? The fear that was miraculously absent in the recent election?
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2013
417,000 cancer deaths by 2061 (highest estimate)-

http://www.llrc.o...calc.htm

There are other formulas in this report that predict fewer radiation-related deaths, but you wouldn't live in Fukushima for any amount of money, GRL Cowan.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2013
417,000 cancer deaths by 2061 (highest estimate)-


2,000,000 in Fukishima Prefecture. And some nutbar suggests 20% of them will die?

From your source:

"The ICRP method predicts 6158 additional cancers in 50 years which, among the 2½ million cancer cases expected normally in that population over half a century, would be invisible and deniable."

kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2013
"Between 6-18 million birds and bats are killed by Spanish wind farms each year"
That many bats would make a protein harvest that could be used to feed livestock. Your absurd numbers transition a bad thing (waste) into an industry product (feed)

Odd how you care so much about birds and could care less about any other species that doesn't fit your needs for shilling, like the radioactive ocean life in the now unfishable waters of Fukushima.
Most windfarms operate at 20% or so capacity, but quite often drop to zero.
So go where the wind blows by building more windmills! USA could be completely off oil for the cost of the Iraq oil war alone.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
"Between 6-18 million birds and bats are killed by Spanish wind farms each year"
That many bats would make a protein harvest that could be used to feed livestock. Your absurd numbers transition a bad thing (waste) into an industry product (feed)


"Clive Hambler -- a lecturer at Oxford, and author of the Cambridge University Press text "Conservation" -- slams the wind industry in no uncertain terms, saying that the sector's support from environmentalists comes as a result of environmentalists being essentially ignorant of science:

The environmentalists who support such projects do so for ideological reasons. What few of them have in their heads, though, is the consolation of science.

"
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013
Hopefully the Japanese will also build the world's largest battery to go along with the world's largest wind farm.

Because otherwise you cannot fit wind power into the grid without there being capacity that is already running, that can give way to when the wind is blowing. In practice that means that there must be 1 GW of natural gas turbines spinning for every 1 GW of windmills.

And since the average production of a windmill is around 20% of its nameplate capacity, it means that 80% of the energy is actually being produced by natural gas.

Which suits the Japanese government just fine, if the rumors about kickbacks from LNG are true.
kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2013
slams the wind industry in no uncertain terms, saying that the sector's support from environmentalists comes as a result of environmentalists being essentially ignorant of science
If you're so concerned about the avian class why don't you petition against cats, NoParker? After all cats are a much greater threat to birds. They also offer little tangible benefit, unlike windmills which can power your home.
@Eikka Hopefully the Japanese will also build the world's largest battery to go along with the world's largest wind farm.
Obviously a battery and ONLY a battery, because where would you find water for hydro-pumping in the Pacific Ocean?
Parsec
5 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2013
As long as the turbines are in deep water, they shouldn't be overly sensitive to tsunamis. Tsunami waves are not large in the ocean, only in the shallows.
NotParker
2.9 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
slams the wind industry in no uncertain terms, saying that the sector's support from environmentalists comes as a result of environmentalists being essentially ignorant of science
If you're so concerned about the avian class why don't you petition against cats,


Cats never kill bald eagles or other endangered raptors.

http://www.timesu...2651.php

If you were an environmentalist wind turbines would horrify you.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2013
slams the wind industry in no uncertain terms, saying that the sector's support from environmentalists comes as a result of environmentalists being essentially ignorant of science
If you're so concerned about the avian class why don't you petition against cats,
Cats never kill bald eagles or other endangered raptors.
No, but power lines do. Do you want to ban electricity?

Top five causes of bald eagle death: http://www.eagles...ival.php
DDT
Poisoning
Electrocution
Poaching
Habitat Destruction

Windmills are an insignificant cause of bald eagle deaths
djr
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
Parker troll:"If you were an environmentalist wind turbines would horrify you."

Many who consider themselves environmentalists support wind farms, many are opposed. Parker of course could not name one benign energy source - so it is all about trade offs. Will we ever know the true environmental cost of Deep Horizon, or Fracking, or coal mining, or mining for uranium? But we are a complex people - and understand that lines must be drawn somewhere, and hard choices must be made. Net net - I would trust the environmental community to make good decisions about our future before I would trust the oil and gas industry - but I still drive a car, and run my house on gas and electricity, and understand the dissonance some of these tough decisions bring us. I am excited to see renewables taking hold so fast. They are proving that past proclamations by dummies like Parker are wrong - costs are dropping, and they are scalable - off to the bone yard with trolls like Parker.
_etabeta_
3.9 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2013
This wind farm will have to be five times larger to have the same power as the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had a combined power of 4.7GW; plus wind does not provide continuous power, so 1GW is only the peak power output.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2013
This wind farm will have to be five times larger to have the same power as the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had a combined power of 4.7GW; plus wind does not provide continuous power, so 1GW is only the peak power output.
Hmm "Projected cost for the windfarm: 261mn dollars." Project cost of Fukushima cleanup 74 to 250 BILLION dollars. So for cost of cleanup Japan can build 1000 such windfarms which would output conservatively a TERAWATT using your numbers. Compare that to your pathetic 4.7GW for the same monies squandered on futile cleanup efforts. Nuclear is a shit technology, useful for aircraft carriers or Mars missions far from population centeres
ShotmanMaslo
3.1 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2013
This wind farm will have to be five times larger to have the same power as the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had a combined power of 4.7GW; plus wind does not provide continuous power, so 1GW is only the peak power output.
Hmm "Projected cost for the windfarm: 261mn dollars." Project cost of Fukushima cleanup 74 to 250 BILLION dollars. So for cost of cleanup Japan can build 1000 such windfarms which would output conservatively a TERAWATT using your numbers. Compare that to your pathetic 4.7GW for the same monies squandered on futile cleanup efforts. Nuclear is a shit technology, useful for aircraft carriers or Mars missions far from population centeres


Except no one is suggesting to build another Fukushima, with the same old reactors and the same mistakes and risks. You act like the new 5 GW would surely cost 250 billion, when its only a very small chance of that happening again with new reactors.
djr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013
etabeta: "This wind farm will have to be five times larger to have the same power as the Fukushima nuclear plant"

Let's drill in to that claim a little. Wind capacity factors are - "20–50%, with values at the upper end of the range in favourable sites" From - http://en.wikiped...nd_power

How convenient that you chose to select the 20 % number! New technologies are helping engineers to push the power factor well above the 20% mark. The current average is around 27%.

The power factor on nukes ranges - with 90% as a high number.

so clearly your numbers are highly misleading - and show serious confirmation bias. The most important number is really the per MW cost of the power - and wind is looking good in that regard.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2013
This wind farm will have to be five times larger to have the same power as the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had a combined power of 4.7GW; plus wind does not provide continuous power, so 1GW is only the peak power output.


Lets assume that the wind farm could produce 1GW some of the time.

In reality, some of the time it would produce zero.

So you would need a backup nuclear power plant to ensure consistent power.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2013
No, but power lines do. Do you want to ban electricity?


Those who support wind turbines want to ban consistent and cheap electricity.

And they want to slaughter more eagles.

The whole wind turbine industry is all about collecting subsidies for rich people so poor people can get screwed.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2013
"Lets assume that the wind farm could produce 1GW some of the time. In reality, some of the time it would produce zero." -NP

The British Navy was the backbone of the great British Empire, and did very well with an inconsistent wind on the high seas. Would I be correct here, dir?
djr
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2013
Parker: So you would need a backup nuclear power plant to ensure consistent power.

No - do some reading on integration of intermittent power sources on to the grid. It is a complex subject - but the bottom line is - by using techniques such as long distance transmission, storage, and demand management, many countries around the world are learning to integrate quite a high percentage of wind and solar on to their grids. Wind and solar often complement each other - and provide a good balance. Storage technology is moving fast - and coming down in price. The short answer troll Parker - you are wrong yet again.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2013
Telekinetic: "Would I be correct here, dir?"

Smile - I am not sure it is the best analogy - and there were times when the ships got stuck for long periods in the doldrums. But yes - I think you are correct in that the sailors learned to adjust to the available resource - in a similar way to the way engineers are learning to work with intermittent energy sources - people like Parker are just out to troll the site and spread rubbish - it is good to push back as much as possible - without wasting all of our time.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2013
Parker: So you would need a backup nuclear power plant to ensure consistent power.

No - do some reading on integration of intermittent power sources on to the grid. It is a complex subject - but the bottom line is - by using techniques such as long distance transmission, storage, and demand management, many countries around the world are learning to integrate quite a high percentage of wind and solar on to their grids. Wind and solar often complement each other - and provide a good balance. Storage technology is moving fast - and coming down in price. The short answer troll Parker - you are wrong yet again.


Germany is just burning more brown coal. Their neighbors are banning German power.

"Renewable energy around the world is causing problems because unlike oil it can't be stored, so when generated it must be consumed or risk causing a grid collapse."

http://www.bloomb...rgy.html
djr
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2013
Troll Parker: "Renewable energy around the world is causing problems because unlike oil it can't be stored, so when generated it must be consumed or risk causing a grid collapse."

You see it really depends where you look for your information right? I can find you articles that announce that wind energy in Brazil is the cheapest form of energy -
http://www.bloomb...tts.html

So - why do you think countries around the world are turning to renewable energy? Look at Denmark, England, Brazil, S.Korea, all of Europe, Scotland, Canada etc. etc.? So troll Parker can find an article from the right wing press bemoaning the fact that there is now too much energy in Europe, due to the success of wind farms. Understandably there are adjustment issues when you try to change so fast - but these issues will be resolved (see my post above). Troll Parker strikes again....
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2013
@NoParker So you would need a backup nuclear power plant to ensure consistent power.
Nuclear plants require days to reach a predetermined power level. So no, they're useless for backup power especially when hydropumping can be done for free using existing dams
...all about collecting subsidies for rich people so poor people can get screwed.
Isn't that why they employed you?
djr
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2013
Here is a neat article that nay sayers like Parker should read - from someone in Europe who knows what she is talking about - not Bloomberg. http://cleantechn...-videos/

One here on how increasing solar output is driving down the cost of energy in Germany and France - http://cleantechn...rd-lows/

An an innovative plan out of Belgium to build large scale storage for wind - in the middle of the ocean - http://cleantechn...storage/

It really does depend on where you look for your knowledge.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2013
The whole wind turbine industry is all about collecting subsidies for rich people so poor people can get screwed.


You are woefully uneducated on the history of subsidies for the energy sector.

Read it and choke on your (baseless) statements.
http://thinkprogr...obile=nc

If you're too lazy (or in denial, as usual) just read this statement from the article
Taking a longer-term view and again adjusting for inflation, the authors find that between 1918 and 2009, the oil and gas industry received a cumulative $446.96 billion in subsidies compared to just $5.93 billion given to renewables in the years between 1994 and 2009. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry benefitted from a cumulative $185.38 billion in federal subsidies between 1947 and 1999.


So you tell me after reading this: which energy sector has made rich people more fat?
packrat
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2013
While I'm all for installing wind and solar power as soon as possible, it doesn't always mean the cost will go down. Here in NC the power company has been installing both but our bills haven't shown any decrease at all. Contrary to what is supposed to happen our power bills have steadily gone up and they are asking for another rate increase now.
djr
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2013
packrat - natural gas prices are at historic lows - and the efficiency of the new combined cycle turbines at historic highs. Has your utility passed the savings on to you the customer?
Sanescience
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
The energy density accessed by fissioning heavy nuclei means at some point we will *have* to use it this millennium if we don't crack the fusion nut. (Side note: fusion has been perpetually x-decades in the future, and now I've seen some articles that there are concerns that quantum tunneling made possible by densities inside the sun and bombs are key to the process dooming current plasma based research.)

This first round of reactors we built will probably be met with the same shock and horror in a couple hundred years as when you describe early medical treatment practices through the 18th century. Barbaric!
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2013
The energy density accessed by fissioning heavy nuclei means at some point we will *have* to use it this millennium if we don't crack the fusion nut

Why 'have to'?
- The sun delivers an overabundance of energy if we want to tap it.
- The Moon (tidal) delivers an overabundance of energy if we want to tap it.
- AND we're sitting on a 13000km diameter rock that is basically molten all the way through delivering an overabundance of geothermal energy if we want to tap into it.

Fission (or fusion) is FAR from a 'must have' (or an 'only option').
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
The problem is that the usefulness of an energy source is also dependent on such things as energy density and consistency of output, not just theoretical abundance based on the quantity of "fuel", or energy produced integrated over long time. If that was the only metric then we have already figured out fusion, since we have fusion bombs.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2013
Energy denity is only a measure if you want a centralized energy market (i.e. where few companies can monopolize the creation and sale of energy). A decentralized energy market can live ith not-so-dense energy sources.

And all alternatives have shown that they are cost effective by now compared to conventional sources. Especially if you take into account the environmental damge that they DON'T cause.

Consistency is an issue - but there's a lot of good ideas and first implementations floating around. The larger you make your grid the less of an issue it is (because the world doesn't stop having sunshine or air movement).

Fusion would be nice to have. But I fear by the time we get it working it will be obsolete on Earth (though it'll still be great off planet)
BilTT
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2013
This will be the sunset of the land of the rising sun.


Developing a clean, safe sustainable energy system is going to end Japan? Nonsense.

...here's xckd's "log scale" cartoon regarding fuel energy density.


If energy density were the only consideration then you and the author of that unreliable blog (see the nonsense he produced on radiation) might have a point. It's not, so you don't.

Nukes have been in global decline for several years. Too expensive, too toxic, too dangerous, no solution to the growing mountain of highly toxic waste.

Germany is demonstrating how to power a 21st century society: renewable energy. Looks like the Japanese have worked out it's the future as well.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2013
It's unfortunate people give in to fear like this. The Japanese economy has been a world mover for decades. I'm not sure how long they can maintain the kind of peaceful socially conscious society they have amid the economic turmoil the general direction of their new energy policy will take them.

You are NEVER going to power a modern industrial economy with jury rigged 13th century technology and huge swaths of solar panels...
BilTT
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
Due to the need for large areas, wind farms will also cause a huge environmental impact on wildlife.


Yes, a positive one.

Offshore wind farms are good for wildlife. Dutch study finds birds avoid offshore wind turbines, while marine life finds shelter and new habitats.
djr
3 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
You are NEVER going to power a modern industrial economy with jury rigged 13th century technology and huge swaths of solar panels...

Countries like Denmark are already at 25% of their electrical generation being from wind - with a goal of 50% within a couple of decades. There is plenty of wind available to supply all of our energy needs - before you even consider - solar, geothermal, hydro, otec, wave, tidal, nuclear.

Here is a supporting quote "between 72 and 170 TW could be extracted in a practical and cost-competitive manner". From - http://en.wikiped...nd_power

"on the internet - you can be anything you want - it is strange how many people choose to be stupid"
BilTT
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2013
...jury rigged 13th century technology and huge swaths of solar panels...


The level of ignorance amongst the renewable energy deniers is impressive.

Modern wind turbines are highly advanced machines, particularly in terms of materials science that is producing ever larger and lighter blades.

Global investment in renewables now exceeds fossil fuels. Over 50% of the US's new generating capacity in 2012 came from renewables.

The world is changing no matter how much nonsense is produced by deniers and liars on the internet.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2013
The problem is that human civilization isn't on a flat demand for energy. In fact the more technologically advanced we get, the more energy we require.

Eventually in order to supply all our energy needs you're going to have to cover the Earth in wind farms and solar panels. Something that proponents of wind and solar claim to do, but actually don't, is take the long view into consideration.

Fission, and Fusion are the future. Whatever else we might use beyond those two technologies don't include exploiting blowing oxygen/nitrogen on our parent planet or collecting stray photons from our parent star.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
"No sane person would think an offshore wind farm is a sane response to a Tsunami." - ParkerTard

No off shore wind farm is going to be affected by a Tsunami, no matter how much ParkerTard whines about it.

VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2013
Fortunately the goal is to power a post modern, post industrial economy, where production is governed by need rather than by engineered product life that is used as an excuse to create artificial scarcity and artificial markets.

"You are NEVER going to power a modern industrial economy with jury rigged 13th century technology and huge swaths of solar panels." - MysticalTard

Leisure is the ultimate Liberty.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
The Libretarian/Randite/GOP push to privatize electric utilities in the U.S. has produced nothing but greater unreliability, higher costs for the public, lower wages for the power workers, and far larger bank accounts for the CEO's running the companies generating the power.

The Libertarians and the GOP facilitators consider this a big WIN.

"Here in NC the power company has been installing both but our bills haven't shown any decrease at all." - Packrat
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
In fact the more technologically advanced we get, the more energy we require.

This isn't true. The more technologically advanced we get the more efficient we get.

Example: Germany has enjoyed modest growth the past few years (despite the Euro crisis). Since 1990 about 25% total.
Yet since 1990 the energy usage has dropped (total by roughly 10% and also per capita).

Eventually in order to supply all our energy needs you're going to have to cover the Earth in wind farms and solar panels

No. Energy is needed by people and companies. People don't need infinite (or even ever more) energy - nor do companies. There comes a point when you have enough. When you have enough energy to heat your home and get yourself about then what more (energywise) do you need?
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
ParkerTard is complaining that wind power is producing too much energy.

Snicker...

"Renewable energy around the world is causing problems" - ParkerTard

BEYOND THE BLUSTER WHY WIND POWER IS AN EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY

http://www.ippr.o...9564.pdf
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
If the average wind speed regularly dropped to zero across continent wide areas, Eikka would be correct.

"there must be 1 GW of natural gas turbines spinning for every 1 GW of windmills." - Eikka

But that never happens.

Eikka is scare mongering.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2013

This isn't true. The more technologically advanced we get the more efficient we get.


Show me a global energy usage/demand chart that is flattening. Otherwise my point stands on the facts.

No. Energy is needed by people and companies. People don't need infinite (or even ever more) energy - nor do companies.


Do you understand that people don't think about this in terms of needs, they operate on wants. Moreover humans don't "need" any energy beyond a wood fire to survive. This isn't a conversation about needs.

We talk about the possibility of advanced alien civilizations on this board a lot. For the sake of argument which kind of energy do you think such a civilization will be more likely to PRIMARILY utilize? Coal, nuclear, wind, or solar?
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
which kind of energy do you think such a civilization will be more likely to PRIMARILY utilize? Coal, nuclear, wind, or solar?

Why does there have to be one fuel that is used PRIMARILY? As we advance as a civilization - we are clearly diversifying our energy sources. That makes perfect sense. Wave and tidal are in development now. Hypothetically - if we had to pick one source - I would pick solar (with storage). It is clean, distributed, simple - the perfect energy source.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
Eventually in order to supply all our energy needs you're going to have to cover the Earth in wind farms and solar panels.

Not true at all - I could run my home and 2 cars easily on 1/2 of my roof. There is massive amounts of building rooftops that could support solar. Wind farms have a very small footprint, as the land can also be used for farming. Off shore plants do not take up any land. Our population will flatten out at some point - perhaps around 10 - 12 billion. There is way more wind and solar available to supply everyone with plenty of power - before we even start thinking about otec, wave, tidal, geothermal, hydro, nuclear - you are just scaremongering.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
Show me a global energy usage/demand chart that is flattening.

http://advisorana...574c.gif

Even in the US the per capita usage is dropping. As you can see all the most heavily industrialized nations are managing a per capita drop (some even a total drop). So I think it's not really realistic to say that "all the world will be covered in wind farms and solar panels". Just a tiny, tiny, tiny part of it.

Do you understand that people don't think about this in terms of needs, they operate on wants.

When your energy needs are met - what more would you want? I can't heat my home more than boiling point and I can't drive around more than 24 hours a day. At some point you can't use any more energy for your wants because stuff you want to do that uses energy starts being at the expense of other stuff that also used energy.

Example: I surf the net - with MUCH less power than I used for it 10 years ago.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
For the sake of argument which kind of energy do you think such a civilization will be more likely to PRIMARILY utilize?

They'll probably be so efficient that any sort of ambient energy will be enough. many of the technologies WE have already are pretty close to that. From Zero energy houses to embedded sensors without any external energy source at all.

If they do space travel I'd suspect they use fusion unless they found something more efficient/powerful. Fusion (or antimatter) may not be the end of the line for energy production. If you can get in orbit around a black hole - or even be so ScFi as to create a small one yourself - you can extract energy from the ergosphere. But speculating on stuff that we know nothing about is pretty academic.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2013
@Modernmystic Show me a global energy usage/demand chart that is flattening. Otherwise my point stands on the facts.
A meaningless request. Certianly a GLOBAL energy usage will involve places employing antiquated technology. You question is tantamount to asking about world history. You can't drive using only the rear view mirror
VendicarD
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2013
That will change dramatically as resources continue to become ever less abundant.

"Do you understand that people don't think about this in terms of needs, they operate on wants" - MysticalTard
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
They'll probably be so efficient that any sort of ambient energy will be enough.


Which didn't really answer my question. The obvious answer is they're probably not going to use wind currents or photons collected through a dense atmosphere on a rotating celestial body.

You yourself alluded as much in your failure to answer the question directly.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2013
That will change dramatically as resources continue to become ever less abundant.


Actually it won't. We'll either utilize different resources or invent new technologies which increase output. It's highly unlikely we'll ever adopt a conservation policy that has any meaningful impact. The society that does will be totally plowed under by those that don't....
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
The obvious answer is they're probably not going to use wind currents or photons collected through a dense atmosphere on a rotating celestial body.

What are you getting at? You're asking what other civilizations will use and think that this somehow has a connection to what we use? Why?

Do we know under what conditions other civilizations evolve? Maybe they evolve on gas giants and never see their sun (until they go into orbit). Maybe their world is dry and they don't have the option of hydro power but have a lot of eathquake power. Maybe they evolve in oceans with a thin atmosphere on top where wind power makes no sense - who knows?

What is important is what makes sense for US right NOW. And that is power sources that allow humanity to survive until we become an advanced civilization ourselves.
If you're asking whether we'll use wind/water/solar forever...who knows? But what will be in a few hundred (or a thousand) years is immaterial to what is now.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
What is important is what makes sense for US right NOW.


And THAT is my whole point. That's not what makes sense. That's the kind of short sighted thinking that got us where we are in the first place. We're going to outgrow solar and wind virtually overnight. There is no theoretical practical limit to fusion and even fission, at least until we are several orders of magnitude over current consumption levels. THEREFORE those are the only two technologies that make SENSE.

I rest my case.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2013
#MM It's highly unlikely we'll ever adopt a conservation policy that has any meaningful impact. The society that does will be totally plowed under by those that don't....
The society that DOESN'T won't be around in the long term to do any plowing
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
#MM It's highly unlikely we'll ever adopt a conservation policy that has any meaningful impact. The society that does will be totally plowed under by those that don't....
The society that DOESN'T won't be around in the long term to do any plowing


Tell that to the Native Americans...

And let's be VERY clear here. I'm not talking about how I personally think things SHOULD be. I'm talking about how things ARE.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2013
We're going to outgrow solar and wind virtually overnight.

So the solution is to stick with stuff that is worse in every way? That makes no sense.

Engineering is always a 'better than' game. Never a 'best and perfect' game.
You can wait forever for the perfect solution. But even if that were possible to have - along the way you will go extinct if you don't give yourself the time to reach that point.

And energy revolutions don't happen overnight. The alternative energy field has been a long time coming. So did nuclear (took more than 30 years to get off the ground). So did coal (which took nearly half a century from specialized uses to widespread avialability)

Fission is (on the planet) a no-go at the scale it would need to be deployed. (Apart from the fact that until it would be built the climate catastrophe would be in full swing).
Fusion isn't ready for prime time (and it's doubtful when it will be).

Alternatives are a way to bridge the gap for little cost.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2013
Alternatives are a way to bridge the gap for little cost.


And I have no qualms with that actually, and I apologize if I did give that impression. I think that "alternatives" will always have a niche usefulness. They may even have a significant role in getting us the hell off of fossil fuels. I think it's shortsighted to make them the POINT of any modern energy policy though.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2013
I think it's shortsighted to make them the POINT of any modern energy policy though.

So what would YOU make the point of any modern energy policy? And by 'point' you probably mean 'most money invested in', right?

And remember: If alternatives aren't the point of your policy then they will be adopted much more slowly (if at all) - with all the attendant dangers of climate change we're facing.

Funds aren't limitless.
djr
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
MM - " I think that "alternatives" will always have a niche usefulness." Denmark currently generates about 28% of it's electricity with wind - by 2020 they hope to be up to 50%, and they have a goal of carbon neutral by 2050. Hardly a "niche" market. If one country can do it - any country can do it.

http://oilprice.c...ath.html
VendicarD
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
Japan does not always make the best decisions, still I trust them more than I trust the vapid pronouncements of doom coming from the ConsrevaTards, who's economic track record scores highly in the highest possible negative category.

Has there been anything that the Republicans have touched over the last 40 years that they haven't fouled up, broken, or destroyed entirely?
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2013
MM - " I think that "alternatives" will always have a niche usefulness." Denmark currently generates about 28% of it's electricity with wind - by 2020 they hope to be up to 50%, and they have a goal of carbon neutral by 2050. Hardly a "niche" market. If one country can do it - any country can do it.

http://oilprice.c...ath.html


Denmark is NOT the US, it is NOT China, and it is NOT an economic powerhouse like Japan is. Just because an Olympic lifter can press 1,000 lbs. doesn't mean you or I could. It is a very small country with a very small energy demand compared to the rest of the world. It's a "niche" country that is currently running just over 1/4 of it's grid off a niche power supply...not impressive at all.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2013
So what would YOU make the point of any modern energy policy? And by 'point' you probably mean 'most money invested in', right?


Not necessarily money invested in. Just removing the ten thousand "friends of the court" suits brought against anyone wanting to build a new fission reactor would be quite sufficient. You don't even have to make it a point per se. It's a proven and incredibly safe means of producing electricity.

antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2013
It's a proven and incredibly safe means of producing electricity.
Compared to all alternative energy sources nuclear is incredibly unsafe, expensive, and with long term investments/subsidies attached (plus a waste management problem that we haven't got a clue how to solve). Plus building them takes incredible amounts of time and are vastly expensive. There are also only 3 or 4 companies in the world that have the experties - so mass producing nuclear reactor isn't feasible in the next few decades even if we wanted to.

Seeing as waste management is the thing that is driving most of our environmental problems I can't really see how one could advocate nuclear.
And it certainly is much more of a NIMBY thing than any other energy source. I'd certainly not want to live within 50km of a nuclear reactor (but I'd have no problem living within 5km of a wind farm)

kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2013
@MM It's (nuclear) a proven and incredibly safe means of producing electricity.
Not funny. You need to go back to comedy school
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2013
Hydro power has killed far more people than nuclear power has.

http://en.wikiped...qiao_Dam

Nuclear is extremely safe, especially with the new generation of reactor designs (if we could actually get any built). Show me some statistics from an unbiased source to prove otherwise...
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2013
Hydro power has killed far more people than nuclear power has.
Dams don't keep breaking for 100,000 years. Fukushima and Chernobyl have irradiated millions and will continue to do so for millenia. The cumulative death toll could easily reach millions

Also drowning is a quick and relatively humane death. Radiation destroys genetic legacy and propagates damage thought the generations forever. Moreover dying of cancer is abhorrent

Those who live under a dam have made a choice. No such choice is made to populations exposed to exploding fission reactors. Nuclear is simply death waiting to happen
rkolter
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2013
@kochevnik - Do you realize you just tried to argue that Dams are better than Nuclear Power, because Dams kill you quickly? I laughed.

Then I realized what you really said was that people CHOOSE to live under Dams and that Dams kill you. The logical result of that thinking is that people who live under Dams do so because they wish to die.

Therapists living near dams have a guaranteed client base. :)
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
Actually it's most likely that "only" 130 deaths will be directly attributable to the Fukishima disaster. It's also important to note that these deaths pale compared to the natural disaster that precipitated them (15,878 from the tsunami).

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
Actually it's most likely that "only" 130 deaths will be directly attributable to the Fukishima disaster. It's also important to note that these deaths pale compared to the natural disaster that precipitated them (15,878 from the tsunami).



And that was a bad design in the backup power systems, not the reactor itself.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
@MM Actually it's most likely that "only" 130 deaths will be directly attributable to the Fukishima disaster. It's also important to note that these deaths pale compared to the natural disaster that precipitated them (15,878 from the tsunami).
Corporfascist beancounting. There will be thousands of premature deaths at minimum. International Journal of Health Services estimates 14,000 at minimum
@NotParker And that was a bad design in the backup power systems, not the reactor itself.
And only the Airbus A300 tail just broke off on an American Airlines flight after takeoff at JFK, killing everyone aboard
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
Corporfascist beancounting. There will be thousands of premature deaths at minimum. International Journal of Health Services estimates 14,000 at minimum


Enviroreligous beancounting. There will not be thousands of premature deaths at minimum.

See how easy that is?
GRLCowan
not rated yet Jan 24, 2013
Actually it's most likely that "only" 130 deaths will be directly attributable to the Fukishima disaster.


By the same calculus, unnecessary X-rays kill a much larger number of people every month.

"Directly attributable"? Attributable in an oil and gas tax revenue lover's dreams, rather, I would say. It is, after all, only radiation that is associated with reduction of this revenue that is fearmongered.
ShotmanMaslo
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
http://abclocal.g...=8742223

"They found that the number of deaths would likely range between 15 and 1,300, with a best estimate of 130, while the number of people acquiring cancer as a result would range between 24 and 2,500, with a best estimate of 180. "

The 14 000 estimate is based on junk science:
http://www.forbes...ima-lie/

Anyone who pushes such crackpot estimations clearly has an agenda.
despinos
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2013


Ban all wind mills they kill an occasional bird !


"Between 6-18 million birds and bats are killed by Spanish wind farms each year"

Species that have survived 10 – 20 ice ages are being driven to extinction by wind farms and environmentalists.

http://www.kcet.o...ion.html


These data of millions of birds and bats killed by windfarms in Spain are plain nonsense and false.

Even if you made machines designed specifically to kill birds and bats, that occupied the same space that windmills actually do, can you imagine the required density of birds and bats per sq. meter required to kill them by the millions?

If that was true, all birds and bats would already been extincty in Spain.
despinos
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2013
I wonder how they make up these "millions of birds and bats dead in Spain" data. As if Spain was some obscure country where we don't take care of the environment.

Just to inform you, to build a windfarm in Spain you need to make a previous study on the potential environmental impact of the windfarm.
If there may be any imaginable negative impacts (which is checked by many diferent parties) e.g. a bat cave located 1.5 km away from the site, the windfarm will not get the permit to be constructed.

You hear this from an engineer who works in the administration and has specifically checked windfarm projects and approved them.
advice: don't take for true any data you read. If it sounds too big to be true, probably is false.
despinos
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2013
"6-18 million birds and bats are killed by Spanish wind farms each year"
This was wrongly taken and is more clearly explained here:
http://www.laserr...ielagos/

Real data provided by the windfarm owners is "106 prey birds and 61 bats a year", total killed by 271 windfarms installed in a region in the south of Spain. That's about less than a bird killed per windmill per year. Even if we consider other birds species, and total windmills in Spain, these numbers may add to a few thousands of birds found dead near windmills per year. If you compare these numbers with those of any other human activity (building a house, for example) you will see that windmills are no more dangerous to birds than, for example, plain windows.
Recalibrate
not rated yet Feb 05, 2013
Real New & Information
peterurquhart
1 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2013
i don't get it, what's with all the hate against the idea in these comments. it's a great thing that they're going to give wind power a shot and i hope it's a complete success! much better than you stodgy dumbasses hiding behind your computers with your facetious know it all attitudes, just waiting to knock something just because you can. do you think it makes you look clever? it doesn't. it shows your ignorance. would you rather that they just create more nuclear plants? or perhaps you believe we should pollute our environment more first hand and use fossil fuels or coal. this is a great alternative. so shut the hell up and get a grip already!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2013
i don't get it, what's with all the hate against the idea in these comments. it's a great thing that they're going to give wind power a shot and i hope it's a complete success! much better than you stodgy dumbasses hiding behind your computers with your facetious know it all attitudes, just waiting to knock something just because you can. do you think it makes you look clever? it doesn't. it shows your ignorance. would you rather that they just create more nuclear plants? or perhaps you believe we should pollute our environment more first hand and use fossil fuels or coal. this is a great alternative. so shut the hell up and get a grip already!


Pot, meet Kettle...