Vestas in $1.2B deal to build huge wind power farm in Norway

February 23, 2016

Danish company Vestas Wind Systems A/S says it has been awarded a 1.1 billion euro ($1.2 billion) deal to supply 278 wind turbines for Norwegian power company Statkraft and its partners for a wind power project in central Norway.

Vestas said Tuesday that the turbines will have a combined capacity of over 1,000 megawatts and will be built on six on land around the Trondheim fjord. Statkraft described it as Europe's largest wind power project to date.

The wind farms are estimated to generate 3.4 terawatt hours of power annually once completed and commissioned in 2020.

Statkraft said the coastal area surrounding the Trondheim fjord provides "some of the best conditions for from wind in Europe."

Explore further: Localized wind power blowing more near homes, farms and factories

Related Stories

France to build wind farm with stealth turbine blades

September 9, 2014

Officials with EDF Energies Nouvelles, an energy company in France, have announced plans for adding turbines with stealth technology to a wind-farm being built in Perpignan. The stealth technology has been developed to prevent ...

Denmark champions wind power, sets record

January 10, 2015

Denmark has had a record year for wind power production. Denmark got 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from wind in 2014. That figure is according to the country's Climate and Energy Ministry.

Just how green is wind power?

March 30, 2015

Wind power may have a positive image, but setting up offshore wind farms is complicated and energy-intensive. Because Siemens promises its customers and the authorities a high degree of transparency for the environmental ...

Denmark sets wind energy world record

January 18, 2016

Danish wind turbines set a new world record by generating nearly half of all the electricity consumed by the Scandinavian country in 2015, an official from state-owned Energinet.dk said Monday.

Recommended for you

Inferring urban travel patterns from cellphone data

August 29, 2016

In making decisions about infrastructure development and resource allocation, city planners rely on models of how people move through their cities, on foot, in cars, and on public transportation. Those models are largely ...

How machine learning can help with voice disorders

August 29, 2016

There's no human instinct more basic than speech, and yet, for many people, talking can be taxing. 1 in 14 working-age Americans suffer from voice disorders that are often associated with abnormal vocal behaviors - some of ...

Sponge creates steam using ambient sunlight

August 22, 2016

How do you boil water? Eschewing the traditional kettle and flame, MIT engineers have invented a bubble-wrapped, sponge-like device that soaks up natural sunlight and heats water to boiling temperatures, generating steam ...

74 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2016
Add to this the other factors in our favor such as this:

http://www.utilit.../414372/

and it looks better and better for Humanity and the Earth, because of this:

http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
"Europe's largest wind power project"
Farewell natural landscapes; luckless birds and bats that will be slaughtered by wind blades in mid-flight or have their air sacs exploded due to lowers air pressure generated by wind turbines, dooming these endangered animals to a horrific death.
http://harvardmag...-bavaria
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
Willie, did you look up "Chernobyl Children"?
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2016
did you look up
https://www.googl...eath+kwh
https://www.googl...rds+bats
https://www.googl...ad+waste
https://www.googl...ic+waste
And an obvious rational conclusion is that, even including all incidents, nuclear power is more ecologically friendly, safer and better for the environment than wind/solar.

Lord_jag
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
The same production from a nuclear plant would cost 10x that.

I wonder what they will do with all the billions and billions of dollars they will save.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
And they do not have to worry about meltdowns, or toxic and radioactive nuclear waste which lasts forever in Human terms.
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Lord_jag - Hinkley point is going to cost 24 billion pounds - for a 3.2 GW plant - that MIGHT be open by 2025. Wonder what the price of wind and solar will be in 2025. If Hinkley does happen to get through all the hurdles - the British public will be on the hook for 20 billion pounds. Does not make much sense - but Willie doesn't want to talk about these details - http://www.thegua...mers-4bn
This is what Willie wants you to live next door to - http://www.pri.or...truction God - aren't those off shore turbines ugly?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
"Nuclear alone produces more power than hydro, wind, solar and geothermal combined, at an average cost of about 4¢/kWh."
"200,000 MW of wind and solar .. 400,000,000 tons of steel and concrete, and a whole lot of copper, silver, indium, tellurium and high-purity silica."
"Maintaining existing nuclear is also cheaper than installing new natural gas plants even with our amazingly low gas prices."
http://www.forbes...and-gas/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
wants you to live next door to ..
off shore turbines ugly
http://s1.ibtimes...ergy.jpg
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
wants you to live next door to ..
off shore turbines ugly

http://www.desmog...shocking
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
Hey, Willikins, the City of Palo Alto just bought power at 3.7cents! And it ain't nuke,so there is no intensely-radioactive waste to worry about forever. And the land it is on isn't radioactive.
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Here is the link gkam - you beat me to it - http://cleantechn...ord-low/

Sorry Willie - how much does a Kwh from a nuke cost? Sorry Willie - I don't think I can hear you.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
GO, thanks for covering for my laziness.
greenonions
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2016
Willie - give us a source on your 4 cents a Kwh power from nukes. Here is the World Nuclear Association - telling us that in 2013 - it was 10 - 11 cents Kwh. http://www.world-...wer.aspx The sub 4 cents a Kwh is operating costs only - EXCLUDING capitol costs. Look at the graph labeled "U.S. electricity production costs 1995 - 2012. EXCLUDING capitol costs - Liar liar.
antigoracle
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2016
GO, thanks for covering for my laziness.

Too bad he can't cover your ignorance. Did you notice the exorbitant subsidies.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2016
"Did you notice the exorbitant subsidies."
-------------------------------------

Are you talking about the $8,300,000,000 in loan guarantees for the nukes at Vogtle?
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Did you notice the exorbitant subsidies.
The 2015 Texas prices show 4 cents subsidized price, and less than 6 cents unsubsidized. The latest California bid is lower - but does not show unsubsidized price. Subsidies are being phased out - and solar is still going to be the cheapest. Two new breakthroughs in the solar world just today. http://cleantechn...v-cells/ The dominoes are falling goracle - it is you that is ignorant. It would suck to be on the wrong side of history - but you and Willie are not smart enough to know what that really means.
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2016
Are you talking about the $8,300,000,000 in loan guarantees for the nukes at Vogtle?


Read the article I referenced on Hinkley Point. $20 billion pounds - straight out the tax payers pockets - meaning it looks like it will never get built. Here - read this and tell us about subsidies goracle - http://www.thegua...mers-4bn
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
power at 3.7cents!
Almost for free, intermittent energy, backed by fossil fuels.
even for free, is expensive.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
And the land it is on isn't radioactive.
renewables: hexavalent chromium, selenium, gallium arsenide, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls, trihalomethane (THM).
http://www.txses....end-life
https://toryardva...inogens/
http://solarindus...mer.html
http://www.dailyr...-4881760
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Willie -
backed by fossil fuels.
Or perhaps backed by a combination of transmission, multiple source grid, geothermal, demand control, and storage. You have no vision Willie - must suck to be on the wrong side of history.

I asked for your source for 4 cents a Kwh nuke. Or are you just a liar?

http://www.conver...oothbay/
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016

You have no vision
Future generations will have vision: seas and oceans, mountains, hills, forests, steppes, savannas, grasslands, all the remaining natural places being covered by wind and solar farms; windmills and rooftops PV releasing chemicals and carcinogenics to everywhere; they will miss nuclear power, compact carbon-free ecologically friendly, which waste is safely confined in fewer locations.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Willie, where is the cheap nuke power?

WHERE??
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
" they will miss nuclear power, "
--------------------------------

Nope. Not at Fukushima. Not at Chernobyl. Not at Seabrook. Not at Rancho Seco. Not at Hanford.
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
cheap nuke power
"The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 0.76 cents / kWh."
"Because nuclear plants refuel every 18-24 months, they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants."
"The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 1.64 cents / kWh."
http://www.nei.or...fe-Cycle
http://www.world-...wer.aspx
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
Nope. Not at Fukushima.
"No one has died as a result of the Fukushima radiation leakage"
http://www.thegua...politics
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation"
" not have caused any increase in the cancer rate."
http://www.nytime...isk.html
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable"
http://journal.av...over-it/
"No one has died from radiation at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex."
http://en.wikiped..._tsunami
" they will miss nuclear power, "
greenonions
3 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Willie - you just re-linked a link that I provided earlier - http://www.world-...wer.aspx This link shows that in 2012 - nuclear energy costs between 3 and 4 cents a Kwh EXCLUDING capitol costs. Read the article - and you will see that it stipulates that capitol costs for nukes are very high. Example -
capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.


Can you give us a cost assessment for nukes - that includes ALL of the costs (including decommissioning), or are you just a liar?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Do not load the cost of armed guards required for nuclear waste forever, just make him buy power from Votgle 3 or Hinckley C.

Voila, . . no more nukes.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
10 - 11 cents Kwh.
What really matters are the final prices, and nuclear is relatively cheap, aside carbon-free and Eco-friendly, keeping most remaining natural landscapes untouched.
Germany: 15.22 ¢/kWh (wind/solar)
France: 8.97 ¢/kWh (nuclear)
http://www.statis...untries/
Don't matter whether wind/solar is 2¢/kWh or for free, because of intermittency it is needed to burn huge quantities of fossil fuels.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
It is nice to see Willie acknowledge how alternative energy has replaced fossil and now nukes for power. In the "midwest", the nuke plants have to be subsidized, to keep on running. Taxpayers, ratepayers, have to give money to the power company which inflicted those costly nukes on them.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2016
alternative energy has replaced fossil
Are you dreaming?
http://renewecono...5-v2.jpg
http://renewecono...nmix.jpg
oil, natural gas and coal, i.e., total fossil fuels remain almost the same, mainly lignite coal, proving that the German Energiewende, even after spending trillion euros, has not resulted in less dependence on the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity.
http://judithcurr...misstep/
http://dailycalle...issions/
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Baghdad Bob had nothing on Wailin' Willie.

They are twins.
greenonions
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
Willie - you are batting a 0. I keep asking for the all in price of nuclear. Your link gave us the general price of electricity in different countries.

Don't matter whether wind/solar is 2¢/kWh or for free, because of intermittency it is needed to burn huge quantities of fossil fuels.


Completely untrue - and answered many times over. The grid is proving very capable of handling significant quantities of wind and solar - see Texas for a good example. We are developing a more resilient grid - capable of even greater quantities. Every Kwh generated by renewables - is another step up the long ladder Willie.
WillieWard
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
http://renewecono...5-v2.jpg
With nuclear phasing out process in Germany, the big loser is natural landmarks/wildlife's habitats.
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://assets.inh...x369.jpg
http://static01.n...arge.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02369/wind_2369276b.jpg
Hypocritical greenies:
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
see Texas for a good example
Texas' energy mix, mostly natural gas, coal, gasoline, distillate oil, fossil fuels in general.
http://www.eia.go...m?sid=TX
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2016
Oops, I gave GO a one by mistake. Sorry.

In Europe, Willie, the "biggest loser" is around Chernobyl.

Ask me about Japan and the United States.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2016
Oops, I gave GO a one by mistake. Sorry.

In Europe, Willie, the "biggest loser" is around Chernobyl.

Ask me about Japan and the United States.
Ever notice that no one ever asks you anything? Do you have any idea why this might be?
Lord_jag
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2016
What really matters are the final prices,

Oh! Well! If that's all that really matters, let the government pay for all the infrastructure for the solar panels like they do for nuke plants.

So... cost of producing solar energy is...zero.

Cost of producing Nuclear is... well you still haven't given us a figure, but the fuel is 3 to 4 cents so that 3 to 4 more than zero.
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2016
Willie - from your reference
Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation capacity more than 16,000 megawatts; in 2014 Texas generated over 39 million megawatthours of electricity from wind energy.
Rome was not built in a day - but we are moving forward.
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2016
As wind power rises in Texas - coal use falls - http://cleantechn...ve-coal/
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2016
infrastructure
Nuclear power requires less area thereby less infrastructure.
solar farm: 10 W/m2
nuclear: 1000 W/m2
"1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile"
"..it uses less land, significantly less concrete and steel, has a low emissions intensity, and generates less expensive electricity than solar and wind alternatives"
"nuclear is the most land efficient, energy-dense source of power, with the lowest use of building materials per unit of energy generated per year, and one of the least expensive in terms of levelized costs. "
http://thebreakth...otprints
"nuclear energy ..least carbon intensive .. surpassing even solar"
http://jmkorhonen...-energy/
"Solar.. up to 75 times the land area."
http://www.nei.or...t-and-Re
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2016
All true Willie. We are still waiting for your all inclusive price on Newclear energy. In my view - there is room in the world for renewables, and nukes. The important thing is that we decarbonise. But you have to be honest about the cost issue - and you seem not capable of honesty.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2016
"Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde
Mankind is inherently prejudiced and biased.
But if it were possible to put aside all myths, beliefs, fictional data, junk science/bogus-environmentalism, political/ideological inclinations, personal convictions, then it should be clear that nuclear power is the most valuable decarbonization method for the environment. Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Ecologically, it is worth the price.
http://www.world-...wer.aspx
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2016
When the wind blows at the disgusting leaking polluted nuclear site at Hanford, instead of producing power, it does this:

http://www.tri-ci...052.html

Wilie will help clean it up.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2016
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2016
When the wind blows at the disgusting leaking polluted
"Two companies fined after death of wind turbine technician"
http://press.hse....hnician/
greenonions
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2016
Wow - Willie - you just keep repeating the same link - and it does not give a number for the cost of power from a nuke. You are quiet a liar. Just saying 'competitve' with other forms of energy is not very helpful is it?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2016
the cost of power from a nuke
9.6¢/kWh, maybe less than 2¢/kWh if it with same subsidies of wind/solar.
"In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants going online in 2019 to be $0.096/kWh before government subsidies"
https://en.wikipe...r_plants
http://www.eia.go...tion.pdf
Carbon-free, compact, ecologically friendly, it is worth the price.
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2016
Nice link Willie - finally got some hard data from you. This graph from your link is a little out of date - but gives a fair comparison - https://en.wikipe...osts.png

I like this quote from your link -
When the full nuclear fuel cycle is considered - not only reactors but also uranium mines and mills, enrichment facilities, spent fuel repositories, and decommissioning sites - nuclear power proves to be one of the costliest sources of energy

Just for wrap up - this chart shows unsubsized solar now coming in at 4.8 cents in Peru - http://cleantechn...sidized/ 1/2 the price of your newclear Willie - and it is going to keep coming down down down.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
gives a fair comparison
Not so fair comparison as nuclear is more compact, carbon-free, less deadly than fossil fuels and renewables per gigawatt produced, more ecologically friendly; nuclear is worth the price.
1/2 the price
in practice
Germany: 15.22 ¢/kWh (wind/solar)
France: 8.97 ¢/kWh (nuclear)
http://www.statis...untries/

So, farewell Peru's natural landscapes and welcome to intermittent energy backed by fossil fuels.
http://www.pv-mag...pack.jpg
http://www.costos...6960.jpg
http://www.dforce...3%BA.jpg
http://ntn24-img....3431.jpg
greenonions
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2016
Not so fair comparison
Well - that is a complex debate Willie - if you put the solar panels on your roof, or a parking lot, or a warehouse etc. etc. then the density does not matter, does it? And no need to mine and process uranium, or to dispose of waste. So that comparison is a little more complex than you want to admit. Peru is definitely smart to select solar over coal. It would take ten years for a nuke to be built, and to come on line. Solar will probably be at 2 cents a Kwh by then. The solar panels will probably be producing power in less than a year.
Lord_jag
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2016
infrastructure
Nuclear power requires less area thereby less infrastructure.
solar farm: 10 W/m2
nuclear: 1000 W/m2
"1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile"


#1, Solar panels make a whole heck of a lot more power than 10W/m2.
#2, How do you place 10kW of a nuclear power plant on top of a residence to minimize transmission lines?

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
if you put the solar panels on your roof, or a parking lot, or a warehouse etc. etc.
on top of a residence to minimize transmission lines
Contradictory, solar farms X rooftop PV, "Economies of Scale" wins, natural landscapes/wildlife's habitats/Nature loses, green hypocrisy/vested interests win; mutually beneficial so fossil fuels win too.
http://news.natio...68.1.jpg
https://theblissp...ddpa.jpg
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2016
Everybody and everything lost in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

No other system we have does that. There is no reason to have these monsters at all, except for the Big Money Boys who push us into them.

Willie will feel better with rooftop PV. Not so much guilt.
Lord_jag
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
There is an issue with symantics here. There's the cost of producing power and the price of selling power.

Most of Willie's links show the price of selling power which is not really related to the cost of producing the power. Sure it included the cost of production, but then it includes profit for companies, salaries, subsidies etc etc.

In Canada when the nuclear plant required 12.8 Billion dollar refit, the for-profit company running the nuclear plant doesn't pay that. That fee is paid by the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada. Considering the plant makes 5GW and will require another refit in the next 30 years (262800 hours). This cost will allow for about 1.3 million GWh over 30 years.

This subsidy of 12.8 Billion dollars equates to 1300 Billion kWh which is a FULL PENNY per kWh. This cost is never seen in the price of the electricity. It's borne by the taxpayers.

It just keeps the cost of nuclear artificially low. Solar never gets that advantage.

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
Everybody and everything lost in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
pathological scaremonger always caught in lies.
feel better with rooftop PV. Not so much guilt.
connected to the grid to compensate intermittency backed by fossil fuels, no guilt.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
"nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies."
"Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)"
"Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)"
"Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)"
https://en.wikipe...ubsidies
http://www.iisd.o...dies.pdf
http://www.world-...sts.aspx
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
Willie http://news.natio...68.1.jpg
Nice picture - looks like an install on a very large roof top. Kind of makes my point for me - if that is what it is. And who says home installs cannot benefit from economies of scale. Lots of lease companies now days are doing multiple installs - thus benefitting from those economies of scale. Commercial properties would of course be even better.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
But "green roofs" would be more Eco-friendly than dark solar PV, creating a habitat for wildlife, providing a more aesthetically pleasing landscape, and helping to lower urban air temperatures and mitigate the heat island effect.
https://en.wikipe...een_roof
https://upload.wi...2013.jpg
http://news.xinhu..._11n.jpg
http://www.homede...%897.jpg
http://www.powerh...x356.jpg
Black objects absorb more sunlight and irradiate it as heat into environment; black PV means more heat, more air-conditioning.
http://sciencelin...key=1464
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
Willie
Black objects absorb more sunlight and irradiate it as heat into environment; black PV means more heat, more air-conditioning.


Wow - Willie - you did not realize that much of the energy that falls on solar panels - is converted to electricity. Have you noticed what color most roofs are - whether commercial or residential? And did you not know that nuclear, coal, and gas generating plants create heat - and put it into the environment? Here - some reading - although if you learn to use google - you will find stacks more - http://www.yalecl...rianism/
WillieWard
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
did not realize that much of the energy that falls on solar panels - is converted to electricity
rooftop PV efficiency around 20% thereby 80% waste heat in urban area. So "green roofs" would be better than dark PV in urban area in order to reduce heat island effect.
https://en.wikipe...ering%29
greenonions
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2016
rooftop PV efficiency around 20% thereby 80% waste heat in urban area. So "green roofs" would be better than dark PV in urban area in order to reduce heat island effect.
Mmmm - there are a lot more pv cells on homes in the world than there are green roofs. Almost every roof in my neighborhood is black - or dark brown - so solar would definitely be a plus in terms of heat island. If you actually took a minute to read my last post - you would understand what was being said about offsetting the heating effect of burning ff, and using nukes. Here - I will try again - read this - http://www.gizmag...s/19257/ So think about that Willie - putting panels on a building - actually reduces the heating of the building - meaning we use less A/C during the hot months. So a double wammy for climate cooling - less ff burnt because of the electricity generated, and the reduced cooling load of the buidings - wow....
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2016
rooftop PV efficiency around 20% thereby 80% waste heat in urban area.

Ok...this argument is beyond stupid.

ALL energy that impacts us is eventually converted to heat. Whether we make use of 20% of it as electricity first or not makes no difference.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
ALL energy that impacts us is eventually converted to heat.
White objects reflect most of the sunlight back to sky while black objects absorb most of the sunlight and irradiate it as heat into environment.
"In sunlight, dark clothes absorb more heat and light-coloured clothes reflect it better"
https://en.wikipe...i/Albedo
The difference is that most of the nuclear power plants are not placed in urban areas, no heat island effect in towns as rooftop PV does.
greenonions
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
Willie
no heat island effect in towns as rooftop PV does.
You have already been shown - with multiple links - that solar panels do not cause a heat island effect. Most roofs are dark colored, and absorb energy. Put solar panels on, and a percentage of that energy is converted to electricity, and thus there is actually a cooling effect. Another link for you - https://www.washi...-little/ The electricity generated by the panels - means ff and nukes have to run less - so less heating there. When the person you are talking with cannot understand the facts you are presenting - you just have to resort to letting the facts speak - and the fool - looks like a fool.
greenonions
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2016
Here's an interesting tid bit for Willie - regarding nukes
Billions of marine organisms, such as fish, seals, shellfish, and turtles, essential to the food chain, are sucked into the cooling systems and destroyed.
Hope Willie has the same concern for the fish and the seals - as he has for the birds and the bats. From - https://en.wikipe...nd_risks
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
By blocking evaporation, solar panels affect local clime, air drier.
"This cooling was also associated with a 20 percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a result in the regions surrounding the deserts."
https://www.washi...-little/

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
concern for the fish and the seals - as he has for the birds and the bats
Nuclear power is ever much more ecologically friendly.
"Technical solutions (such as fish screens and plume eliminators) can effectively mitigate many of these impacts"
"Technology-based solutions at a power plant's cooling water intake structure can be highly effective in protecting fish and can accommodate the ecological diversity of the various sites. As the EPA has pointed out previously, solutions like traveling screens, with a collection and return system, are comparable to cooling towers in protecting aquatic life in water bodies used for cooling power plants.""
http://www.world-...nts.aspx
"Fish screens are typically installed to protect endangered species of fishes"
https://en.wikipe...h_screen
Wind/solar kills more animals per gigawatt produced.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2016
concern for the fish and the seals - as he has for the birds and the bats
Nuclear power is ever much more ecologically friendly.
Yes, specifically the ecology of graveyards
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2016
Hey Willie - cherry pick your quotes why don't you. From the same article
On a global scale, these changes will be minor compared to what would happen if humans continue to burn fossil fuel for energy instead, but are still worth watching, scientists say.
I am happy to take renewable energy - and Willie is on the wrong side of history. Look what Honda had to say - http://cleantechn...by-2030/ Don't you hate being on the wrong side of history Willie? You should hook up with MR166 and Eikka.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2016
1975: Shimantan/Banqiao Dam Failure
Type of power: Hydroelectric
Human lives lost: 171,000
Cost: $8,700,000,000
What happened: Shimantan Dam in China's Henan province fails and releases 15.738 billion tons of water, causing widespread flooding that destroys 18 villages and 1500 homes and induces disease epidemics and famine.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2016
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2016
"Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables"
http://www.eartht...a-fables
http://www.southe...t-coast/
http://www.deepse...isaster/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.