EU clears massive German wind farms investment

April 16, 2015
The EU on Thursday approved German government support for a massive investment of nearly 30 billion euros in new offshore wind f
The EU on Thursday approved German government support for a massive investment of nearly 30 billion euros in new offshore wind farms, a key project as the country phases out nuclear energy

The EU on Thursday approved German government support for a massive investment of nearly 30 billion euros in new offshore wind farms, a key project as the country phases out nuclear energy.

Germany decided to close down its after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan and focus on renewables to generate 40 to 45 percent of its electricity needs.

The European Commission said German plans to support the building of 17 in the North Sea and three in the Baltic Sea did not violate state aid rules, adding that they would also support the EU's own energy and environmental targets.

Berlin has said it will give operators a premium on top of the market price for electricity given the scale of the investment required, estimated at 29.3 billion euros.

The wind farms will have a combined maximum capacity of seven gigawatts and account for about 13 percent of Germany's electricity requirements by 2020, said the Commission, the European Union's executive arm which policies state aid policy.

"The Commission verified that the state aid is limited to what is necessary to realising the investment," it said in a statement.

"The rates of return that investors would achieve thanks to the premium were limited to what is necessary to implement each project and in line with rates previously approved by the Commission for similar projects," it added.

Explore further: EU signals end to high subsidies for renewable energy

Related Stories

EU signals end to high subsidies for renewable energy

November 5, 2013

The European Commission issued new guidelines Tuesday which could end costly and controversial subsidies for renewable energy, opening the way for state-aid backing of gas or coal-fired electricity generation projects.

Offshore wind capacity in Germany passes gigawatt mark

January 20, 2015

Germany's offshore wind capacity more than doubled last year as investors warm up to the technology, reported Reuters. The increase was from 915 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2013 to 2.35 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2014. ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

When words, structured data are placed on single canvas

October 22, 2017

If "ugh" is your favorite word to describe entering, amending and correcting data on the rows and columns on spreadsheets you are not alone. Coda, a new name in the document business, feels it's time for a change. This is ...

Enhancing solar power with diatoms

October 20, 2017

Diatoms, a kind of algae that reproduces prodigiously, have been called "the jewels of the sea" for their ability to manipulate light. Now, researchers hope to harness that property to boost solar technology.

84 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2015
Wow. And check into this:
http://www.utilit.../387395/
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2015
Right now Red Rocket is playing a town hall meeting for WIPP, and why they screwed up, and what they plan to do about it.
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2015
Massive Wind Farms: bad news for bats and birds, a misfortune for wildlife in general.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2015
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2015
Hey Willie:
http://www.cbsnew...n-birds/
http://www.dailym...ign=1490

Biased correlations.
Even so, numbers are much less than wind and solar.
Blame the cats as renewable supporters do.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2015
Willikins,

Been in a nuke plant? Know how they are supposed to work? Know abut Brown's Ferry? Fermi I? SL-1? Monju? TMI II? Chernobyl? Fukushima?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2015
WillieWard
Even so, numbers are much less than wind and solar.


Problem solved for solar - http://cleantechn...-towers/

I bet willie the misinformation manager - is still unwilling to talk about the environmental costs of oil, gas, and coal - right willie???

http://www.ucsusa...HA5MllnQ
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2015
Massive Wind Farms: bad news for bats and birds

Are you stupid or illiterate? Or do you just not know the meaning of the word offshore?

It's these idiotic knee-jerk posts by people who just read the headline (and maybe look at the picture) and then feel the need to share their stupidity with the rest of the world that really makes me lose all faith in humanity.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
30 billion is well over triple the cost of the 1.6 GW EPR reactor being built in Finland, even with all the setbacks and cost-overruns.

The EPR is expected to have a capacity factor of around 95%
Existing off-shore turbines in Germany have reached capacity factors of 50%

So, 3.5 GW for €29.3 billion versus 1.5 GW for €8.5 billion

On the face of it, the wind turbines seem to be 50% more expensive.

Though there's still the issue that the nuclear powerplant is designed for 40-60 years while the wind turbines are not. I don't know the design life, but I am guessing 25 years at most.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2015
Erm...you aren't counting the cost for 10k - 100k years of storage of wastes. Wanna guess how much that will be?
gkam
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015
"The EPR is expected to have a capacity factor of around 95% "
-----------------------------------------

Yes, and they told us in the 1950's that nuclear power would be essentially free.

Have you checked on the status of the EPR reactor vessels with the too-high carbon content? This leads to cracking, and there are more than one of those EPR units with the problem.

What is the differences between a wind turbine coming apart and a nuclear reactor melting down?

Do you remember when they told us that was impossible?
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
Problem solved for solar - http://cleantechn...-towers/

Large areas, fragmentation of wildlife's habitats, never solved.
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2015
Are you stupid or illiterate? Or do you just not know the meaning of the word offshore?

Offshore wind farms is a pretty smart idea, let piles and piles of slaughtered seabirds stay hidden underwater, or then blame the catfishes, problem solved.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015
Ocean catfish? Did you take any science?
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
Erm...you aren't counting the cost for 10k - 100k years of storage of wastes. Wanna guess how much that will be?


Not very much.

http://phys.org/n...sts.html



Scientists at the University of Sheffield calculate that all of the UK's high level nuclear waste from spent fuel reprocessing could be disposed of in just six boreholes 5km deep, fitting within a site no larger than a football pitch.

The concept - called deep borehole disposal - has been developed primarily in the UK but is likely to see its first field trials in the USA next year. If the trials are successful, the USA hopes to dispose of its 'hottest' and most radioactive waste - left over from plutonium production and currently stored at Hanford in Washington State - in a deep borehole.


Deep borehole disposal is particularily cheap and safe because it costs only a few million per hole, and it's so far below the water table it just can't get out.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
Yes, and they told us in the 1950's that nuclear power would be essentially free.


The existing reactors at Olkiluoto, where the EPR is being built, have capacity factors around 94%

The Finns are extremely anal about how their reactors are made and run, which is why Areva has been forced to re-do the reactor vessel welding, the botched concrete jobs, the plant automation, etc. etc. and why the whole thing is running three times over budget. The Flamanville plant is going the same way, because every time they discover a new problem at Olkiluoto, they have to fix it there as well.

It's a learning experience for them to be the first ones to build a new reactor in Europe in about 30 years.

The EPRs they're building in China are a different matter. I fully expect them to blow up at some point.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015
Have you checked on the status of the EPR reactor vessels with the too-high carbon content? This leads to cracking, and there are more than one of those EPR units with the problem.


Yes. I'm waiting on the results before calling it a dud. High carbon content means the metal may need to be heat-treated to gain back ductility and toughness, but I don't think they're off tolerances so that the whole thing becomes unsafe.
foolspoo
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015
The detractors are running out of fodder.

I wonder how many decades of use for all wind farms on this world would pass before the amount of life that was harmed began to rival the BP spill in the gulf? The 10+ year ongoing spill from Taylor Energy? The National Power Corporation spill that is approaching two years?
Lest we forget, oil spills are just a portion of the environmental damage.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Heat treating does not remove carbon, it just eases stresses. And ductility comes from nodular carbon, which cannot be done after the fact.

Interestingly, the reactor vessels in China do not share the same carbon problem, as far as we know, since they were made elsewhere. But the balance of plant, . . ?
gkam
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2015
Eikka, the manufacture of ductile iron requires special alloys and an extreme environment. Our foundry invented the air pollution system for the manufacture of ductile iron in the 1970's, but refused to patent it, so another group did.

Typically, the iron is inoculated with a Nickel-Magnesium alloy, resulting in a powerful exothermic reaction and the evolution of fume and flare.
foolspoo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Exciting link up top there gkam. Thanks for the share. Very telling of the oppressive propaganda so many are quick to believe.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Have you checked on the status of the EPR reactor vessels with the too-high carbon content? This leads to cracking, and there are more than one of those EPR units with the problem.


Further on this issue, I dug around a bit, and the Finns have prior experience on that as well.

Their two reactors at Loviisa were actually designed by the Soviets and built in the late 70's, but the control systems were obtained from the US due to politics. They ran into similiar problems as the EPR with the strict standards and costs running up fixing the quality of their work.

The reactor type: http://en.wikiped...iki/VVER

They also had issues with the welds of the reactor vessels due to impurities in the steel and neutron embrittlement, so they annealed the welds in 1996 and both reactors got their licenses extended to 50 years.

These things are running so cheap now that the Finnish government considered a special windfall tax on nuclear power to get in on the profits.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
Heat treating does not remove carbon, it just eases stresses.


There are many different heat treatments for steel. Annealing isn't the only one. Tempering increases toughness and ductility while reducing hardness. With heat treatment, high-carbon steel can be adjusted between hardness and toughness.

And ductility comes from nodular carbon, which cannot be done after the fact.


Yes. In cast iron. Which is different from steel.

Our foundry invented the air pollution system for the manufacture of ductile iron in the 1970's


Your foundry? When did you ever own one, or are you trying to pull a fib again?
Btw. "Ductile iron" is a type of cast iron, which is not what the reactor vessels are made of.

Eikka
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
Exciting link up top there gkam. Thanks for the share. Very telling of the oppressive propaganda so many are quick to believe.


Yes. Very exciting:

Governor Jerry Brown in January set one of the world's most ambitious targets for cleaning up power generation, saying 50 percent of supply should come from renewables by 2030, a dramatic increase from the current goal of 33 percent by 2020. He didn't make clear how the goal could be achieved.


Well, I say why not 110%. I won't say how exactly you can do that, but that's my political platform. Elect me instead!

Michael Picker, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said the grid already is comfortably managing solar and wind energy that reached as much as 40 percent of the total a few days last year.


That's not the same thing at all. Getting to 50% all the time is a whole different proposition than getting to 40% a couple days a year.
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
The difference is that currently the peak output of renewables is 40% of the demand, which happens a couple days a year.

Getting 50% of all your grid energy from renewables like wind and solar all year round means your peak output is more like 400% of the demand, and that's something the grid won't handle. But if you don't make use of the peak output, then you'll never reach the 50% goal.

They're comparing apples to teacups.

It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I really really hate.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
Willie ward
Large areas, fragmentation of wildlife's habitats, never solved.


Guess you did not read the article. Why I am I not surprised? All energy sources have their costs Willie - it is a case of balancing costs with benefits. You NEVER acknowledge the environmental costs of coal do you. At this point - a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, (and in my view next gen nukes - although that is contentious) certainly looks a lot better than fossils). Why do you bother commenting - when you clearly are not willing to acknowledge the reality of the environmental costs of fossils?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
eikka
It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I really really hate


Same way I hate your intellectual dishonesty. We have plenty of examples of countries that are increasing their percentage of renewables significantly. Here is a list of for you. http://en.wikiped..._sources

56 countries that are above the 50% mark. Yes each one is unique - which is the beauty of a diverse energy system - we fit it to the strengths of the specific region. And we are just getting started. Wait until storage gets cheap enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
Gkam the (former) Plant Engineer at a foundry says
And ductility comes from nodular carbon, which cannot be done after the fact
-to which Eikka responds
Yes in cast iron. Which is different from steel
Eikka asks:
Your foundry? When did you ever own one, or are you trying to pull a fib again?
Naw he claims to have been an engr at one but doesn't know the difference between steel and cast iron, or much of anything about heat treating.

Why do the sick think they can get away with this? How long did that job last george??
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015
Same way I hate your intellectual dishonesty.


I resent that statement. Don't make such accusations without evidence, or you'll be guilty of the very thing.

We have plenty of examples of countries that are increasing their percentage of renewables significantly. Here is a list of for you. http://en.wikiped..._sources

56 countries that are above the 50% mark. Yes each one is unique...


The vast majority of the countries above 50% are utilizing hydroelectric power, and a whole lot of them are underdeveloped countries that aren't even producing enough for their populations, which is not the sort of model for renewable energy that we can keep expanding to solve the energy problem for the rest of humanity.

I challenge you to find a single first world country that is producing 50% of their energy with renewable energy other than old high-head hydropower. Aside from Norway and Iceland.
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2015
Keep on adding dodges, Eikka. And why are you excluding high-head hydro? Because it is convenient to do so?

And let's talk iron and steel. Do you really think you are going to lecture me about ductile iron? Do you understand its manufacture? Ever seen it made? You are completely ignorant of the differences between iron and steel, which are mainly carbon content. Iron is a newer engineering material than steel.

And, Eikka, I and the Senior Engineer from the BAAQMD signed the first approved industrial operation permit, which was for our system.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
we fit it to the strengths of the specific region. And we are just getting started. Wait until storage gets cheap enough.


The reality of the situation you're talking of is places like Afghanistan, where 85% of the energy demand is met with burning wood and animal dung. It's not actually sustainable or green, but more a result of the abject poverty in a war-torn country.

http://en.wikiped...hanistan

But it gets them a high ranking in the renewables list.

And why are you excluding high-head hydro? Because it is convenient to do so?


Because we have no more rivers to dam, and the few we have represent massive ecological harm if we actually did.

You are completely ignorant of the differences between iron and steel, which are mainly carbon content. Iron is a newer engineering material than steel.


Oh dear lord, you can't be serious!
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
Be as nasty as you want, Eikka, you are losing ground.

In fact, you are beginning to sound like otto.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
I want Eikka to show me how he is going to heat-treat the Reactor Vessel to lower the carbon content of the steel.

Or make it more ductile.

Go ahead.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
I want Eikka to show me how he is going to heat-treat the Reactor Vessel to lower the carbon content of the steel.


You can't, and you don't need to because it's not made of cast iron.

Or make it more ductile.


You heat it below the critical temperature for that alloy and let it cool at a controlled rate. I suggest you actually read some sort of introduction to the basics, like:

http://www.bright...mpering/

Or would that be too much "wiki warrior" for you?

In tempering, a material is heated to below its critical temperature. This heating process increases ductility and toughness of a material. (...) Tempering increases ductility and toughness of steel, minimizes cracking, and increases workability. However, it also decreases hardness.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Show me how you are going to do that in the installed reactor vessel. And your tempering mainly relieves stresses, it does not change the carbon content or more important, the shape of the carbon.

Most of our products were stress-relieved in tempering ovens and furnaces.

And, yes, steel needs it,too.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Show me how you are going to do that in the installed reactor vessel.


For that I'd need to see the exact construction. You know you're demanding something completely unreasonable.

And your tempering mainly relieves stresses


False.
it does not change the carbon content

True
or more important, the shape of the carbon.


False. What it does is alter the iron-carbon phase of the material, or in other words, its chemical microstructure. Heating the steel below the critical temperature allows for a controlled migration of carbon and other additives and impurities out of solution from the iron grains, while annealing and quenching traps them back in, allowing you to control the structure and shape.

Most of our products were stress-relieved in tempering ovens and furnaces.


You don't need an oven or a furnace to do it, nor do you need to heat the entire part at once, nor do you need to do the entire vessel. Only the critical points.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2015
Seriously.

I've been to the introductory university course in metallurgy. I've seen what happens to steel when you temper it, what happens at the seam when you weld it, looking through a lab microscope at cut and etched samples of a piece of steel I tempered. It's not part of my trade, but it was mandatory anyhow.

I'm currently in the process of annealing, quenching and tempering a piece of random high-carbon steel I found in my scrap bin in order to produce a custom beading plane blade for my woodworking hobby.

I don't claim to be anything more than an abject amateur in metallurgy, but I do know a good deal about what the heck you can do with and to steel.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
Eikka - I resent that statement. Don't make such accusations without evidence, or you'll be guilty of the very thing

Interesting right. No problem when you make exactly that accusation towards others - but indignation when someone calls you out on it.
There is ample evidence for accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I can sit here all day and show you examples of countries that are showing us that the future is renewable energy. Sure - hydro is currently a major part of most countries that are leading the pack. Sharing power with other countries is common. Use of Geothermal is happening (Costa Rica, and Iceland). So what? The point is that it is happening. Despite the fact that it is happening - you and several other posters show up on every thread - and spread your disinformation. It is happening Eikka - and we are just getting started. We are on the first rung of a very long ladder. You are either too blind, or serving an agenda (dishonest) to understand.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
Interesting right. No problem when you make exactly that accusation towards others


Did I not show the exact reason for my accusation?

A person who says "the grid can handle 50% renewables", who actually means "the grid can handle 50% peak renewable power" is being intellectually dishonest.

Another person who takes the statement and spreads it around as propaganda and promotion, knowing the disparity between the two statements, is being even more so.

Exaggeration of the achievements of renewable power by retconning in old hydroelectric power that's been around for 30-40-50 odd years is intellectual dishonesty because it tells us nothing of the actual issues in going forwards from what we already have, which isn't much.

you and several other posters show up on every thread - and spread your disinformation


I resent that accusation.

I do not knowingly spread disinformation, and I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
Eikka
I challenge you to find a single first world country that is producing 50% of their energy with renewable energy other than old high-head hydropower. Aside from Norway and Iceland.


Denmark. http://en.wikiped..._sources

These numbers are 3 years out of date - there will be more by now.

Of course - you will now find a different reason why that country does not count. Can you say confirmation bias.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
I resent that accusation.


Resent it all you want Eikka. The FACT is that we are in the early stages of an exciting transition to clean, cheap, abundant, distributed energy systems. It is happening - and you never miss an opportunity to show up - and disparage this revolution. You are being intellectually dishonest - by so consistently trying to disparage - a technology that is now proving itself. You are howling at the moon.
Eikka
1.6 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2015

Of course - you will now find a different reason why that country does not count. Can you say confirmation bias.


I have no trouble granting Denmark. 50,73% is indeed more than 50% and that was the criterion I stated.

I leave it to you to judge whether it's meanigful to say that Denmark is producing that much of their energy with renewable power, when they're exporting a great deal of their wind energy without an ability to utilize it directly.

The FACT is that we are in the early stages of an exciting transition to clean, cheap, abundant, distributed energy systems. It is happening - and you never miss an opportunity to show up - and disparage this revolution. You are being intellectually dishonest


I do not dismiss that, nor do I disparage the transition itself.

I dismiss and argue against the exaggeration and the people who pretend there's nothing wrong with the way we're crippling ourselves with rising cost of energy and misplaced subsidies etc.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2015
"I dismiss and argue against the exaggeration and the people who pretend there's nothing wrong with the way we're crippling ourselves with rising cost of energy and misplaced subsidies etc."
---------------------------------------------------

Then, you are complaining about the politics? You have different politics and situations in Europe, so generalizations are not directly transferable. Your folk decided to go faster than we have the courage to do. Much of our politics is dominated by Big Money, since they own Congress.

I would pay more to progress faster.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2015
I dismiss and argue against the exaggeration and the people who pretend there's nothing wrong with the way we're crippling ourselves with rising cost of energy and misplaced subsidies etc.


And you resent that I call you dishonest. How are we 'crippling" ourselves? I live in Oklahoma. A state that is building a significant amount of wind. I pay an average of about 11 cents per Kwh - and I am signed up for 100% wind - that actually raises my costs slightly. Wind and solar are in the process of bringing the cost of electricity down. Many in the world would die for my energy costs. I average $70 a month, on a 2300 sq foot home.
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2015
I bet willie the misinformation manager - is still unwilling to talk about the environmental costs of oil, gas, and coal - right willie???
With CO2 as excuse, pseudo-environmentalists intend to cover our entire planet with cooking panels and slaughtering blades. It is lamentable. Since CO2 is not as so harmful as has been preached by fear mongers, on the contrary, plants and phytoplankton breathe in CO2, it is essential for all forms of life as water is. If biofuel is good, then oil and coal should not be considered so bad after all because they are (fossilized) biofuels too.
Meanwhile, deforestation of rainforests and other biomes for human settlement and agriculture, that should be the ultimate concern, has not given the proper importance. Perhaps pseudo-environmentalists are intending to cover all Earth's surface with their tower blades and large panels to avoid flora and fauna from releasing CO2.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2015
And you resent that I call you dishonest. How are we 'crippling" ourselves?


Your particular example is not representative of the whole. Where renewable energy works, it works, to the extent that it works. Outside of that, it doesn't. That's the point.

Let's come back to the point of this news article: 30 billion investement in something that is arguably twice as expensive as the alternatives. How is that not crippling ourselves?

Energy is 9 parts out of 10 responsible for all our societies' economic and productive output, and the cost of it determines whether we can sustain the transition to a sustainable economy. Jumping the gun on the transition and shoveling truckloads of money to half-made solutions just puts the transition back by slowing everything down.

greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2015
Your particular example is not representative of the whole.


My example is representative of where the technology is headed. Wind, solar, geothermal, and storage are all headed down in price fast. In many parts of the world - they are on par with fossils, and in some parts they are now cheaper. Much of this cost reduction is due to economies of scale. Manufacturing is being built very fast - and there are many promising advances in the labs. These costs WILL continue down. Much of the cost reduction - is due to the economies of scale. Of course there has to be pioneers - but thanks to those pioneers - we are now looking at energy prices coming down. Fossils have had their day - and have had many years of supports - why do fossil defenders not think that renewables have a right to the same treatment?
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2015
WillieWard is still obfuscating. Still not wiling to touch the issue of the environmental costs of fossil fuels.........
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2015
And let's talk iron and steel. Do you really think you are going to lecture me about ductile iron? Do you understand its manufacture? Ever seen it made?
Again the fake engr thinks that knowledge is attained through proximity. I've seen many movies but I don't know how to make one.
Iron is a newer engineering material than steel
Brilliant. Did you learn this while you were watching it being made?
And, Eikka, I and the Senior Engineer from the BAAQMD signed the first approved industrial operation permit, which was for our system
IOW since you say you did this, you OUGHT to know the difference. But it's obvious you don't. How to reconcile this profound disconnect? Conclusion - gkam is a compulsive bullshitter.

Did the BASLQMADD engr find out you weren't qualified to do the job? Is that why you lost that one as well?
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2015
Still not wiling to touch the issue of the environmental costs of fossil fuels.........

Environmental costs of fossil fuels, as well ecological damage of solar and wind, are much more than nuclear per gigawatt generated even taking into account all nuclear power plant incidents.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2015
I proved who I am, but poor otto, the kid with all the pseudonyms, the admitted game player here, is just a cowardly sniper, never contributing to the debate, only to personal attacks on those with information he does not like, or experience he has not had.

Never having been in a wind farm, a geothermal generating facility, a nuclear powerplant, or a coal-fired monster, he nonetheless thinks Wiki will save him.

Now, let's talk about how wind is closing the loser nuke plants. How many have closed or are closing in the past year?

Oh, willie, you can get some cheap beach property at Fukushima!
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2015
Oh, willie, you can get some cheap beach property at Fukushima!

Much less worse than having a visual impact of bunches of offshore wind towers on the landscape, or turbine noisy pollution, or disturbing images of piles and piles of slaughtered birds.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2015
Environmental costs of fossil fuels, as well ecological damage of solar and wind, are much more than nuclear per gigawatt generated even taking into account all nuclear power plant incidents.

I dunno. I'm not aware of renewables having taken out thousands of square kilometers from all future use - for basically forever. Are you? What kind of ecological (and economical!) cost would you put on something like that?
gkam
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2015
" turbine noisy pollution"

Ever been in a thermal powerplant of any kind? Oil? Gas? Nuke? Coal? Geothermal?

"disturbing images of piles and piles of slaughtered birds. "

Show us!!!
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2015
willie, I'll trade you some good pics and videos of Fukushima for some of wind turbine-slaughtered birds in piles and piles.

Time to move your mouth over and replace it with some pics and references.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2015
I proved who I am
-and you also proved (to everybody but yourself) that who you are has nothing to do with what you know.
but poor otto, the kid with all the pseudonyms, the admitted game player here, is just a cowardly sniper, never contributing to the debate, only to personal attacks on those with information he does not like, or experience he has not had
I do research and provide facts which prove for instance that your claims of fallout lung cancer, H2-generated nuclear explosions, and thorium research being abandoned worldwide are bullshit, whether you choose to ignore it or not.
Never having been in a wind farm, a geothermal generating facility, a nuclear powerplant, or a coal-fired monster, he nonetheless thinks Wiki will save him
So if proximity is a valid way of acquiring knowledge we should ask the janitors how they work as they spend the most time there. Or the validators like yourself who spend their time reading dials and filling out forms.

Yes?
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2015
You read Wiki, although you do not understand it, screwing up repeatedly, even blaming me for some nonsense you had cut and pasted yourself. You have to understand the lingo, Toots.

The H2-caused criticalities were not my assessment but that of nuclear professionals explaining how the constituent resultants could only have been generated. Would you like the analyses?

Meanwhile, here is another reference you'll like:
http://nuclear-ne...t-130km/
TudorCorneliu
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2015
same silly debate i see with the same people.

you guys should call it a day because:
1) even if it costs 10x times western countries and not only will go with it cause they prefer people to have the illusion of safety although the price for it is exponential
2) considering the investments directly in the green industry but also on horizontal (related and supporting industries) people / governments won't back down now
3) no one cares about nature / birds / animals etc if it's a buck to be made (they didn't care when they did auto-way infrastructure in Europe for example and destroyed entire forests and mountains, or when France build it's nuclear reactors despite heavy negative public feedback and protests, just for example)
4) people will just bet on indirect effects, like lower costs on health care, that on long term might pay off
5) as countries will have the capacity to produce more green energy, appliances (cooking / heating) will also shift from gas / coal to electric.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2015
H2-caused criticalities were not my assessment but that of nuclear professionals explaining how the constituent resultants could only have been generated. Would you like the analyse
Yes link them so we can laugh at them as we laugh at you.

To reiterate (as you think that discussions in old threads invalidate over time) you and your astute friends postulate that an H2 explosion (which can't detonate even though I showed you that it can) could somehow compress molten, contaminated Pu to the point of protein criticality, thereby throwing macroscopic reactor vessel parts 130km.

Except that initiating this prompt criticality takes very exacting machining of the Pu and high explosives normally required; that the article which initiated this brainiac meltdown was about DUST carried by wind, and not parts; and that similar explosions at test ranges create massive craters and STILL fail to throw debris beyond 1km.

The virtue about senility is that you forget how stupid you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2015
When I type 'prompt criticality' spellcheck thinks I mean 'protein criticality'. Sometimes AI is not as smart as you think it is.
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2015
I sent you the references. You prefer to pretend I did not. Are you here today to play one of your "games" with your admitted "sock puppets", as you folk call them?

Looked into Votgle recently? Hinkley? How many nukes will close his year?
Returners
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2015
Deep borehole disposal is particularily cheap and safe because it costs only a few million per hole, and it's so far below the water table it just can't get out.

Re
]

Washington State is Volcanic. In fact almost everywhere in the U.S. is either a Volcano zone or an Earthquake zone. Even the Grand Canyon is cutting through several extinct volcano flows. Where you plan on storing this waste?
WillieWard
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2015
Time to move your mouth over and replace it with some pics and references.

Spanish wind farms kill 6 – 18 million birds & bats a year
http://savetheeag...ear.html

Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds a year!
http://www.cfact....-a-year/
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2015
I'm not aware of renewables having taken out thousands of square kilometers from all future use - for basically forever.
To meet the global ever-growing demand for energy it will be needed to cover all land and seas worldwide with towers and panels or coerce most of the humanity to go back to cavern ages or compel them to live like in underdeveloped countries.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2015
I sent you the references. You prefer to pretend I did not
'Sent' me? Where? More senility?
Are you here today to play one of your "games" with your admitted "sock puppets", as you folk call them?

Looked into Votgle recently? Hinkley?
Are they the ones who taught you that in order to learn about something you actually have to visit it? Did they teach you that H2 can't detonate even though we know that it can? Did they explain exactly how molten Pu, combined with all sorts of crud and muck, can still be brought to prompt criticality by an H2 explosion in the RUINS of a nuclear reactor??

Youre a fucking JOKE.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2015
No, Willie, they won't. I think those of you who have not been in the business are ripe for exploitation.

Got some great beachfront property for sale at Fukushima, Willie!

Don't pass it up!
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2015
Solar panels are not so clean, as they are "sending up billowing clouds of thick black smoke which could be seen from miles around" maybe to get smocked birds more delicious.
"Bonfire of Insanities: Solar Panels Start Fire at Green Party-Run Hove Town Hall"
http://www.breitb...wn-hall/

WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2015
Solar panels are not so clean, as they are "sending up billowing clouds of thick black smoke which could be seen from miles around" maybe to get smocked birds more delicious.
"Bonfire of Insanities: Solar Panels Start Fire at Green Party-Run Hove Town Hall"
http://www.breitb...wn-hall/
"Hove town hall fire 'caused by solar panels'"
http://www.bbc.co...32382795
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2015
Anybody who gets his science from political sources deserves what he gets.

Just do not inflict it on the rest of us.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2015
Willieward
To meet the global ever-growing demand for energy it will be needed to cover all land and seas worldwide with towers and panels


Thanks for showing us how little you know.

http://www.iflsci...ctricity
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2015
Anybody who gets his science from political sources deserves what he gets
But this is often better than getting it from your ass which is where much of your 'science' comes from. This is typical of posturers and pretenders who think that where info comes from is more important than what that info is.

And so they will spend much time and effort developing credentials to support the views they profess rather than researching what genuine experts have to say, and risking the exposure of their artifice. This is why they degrade research and the people who use it to expose them. They really have no other argument against it.

'I was there!' say the phonies. So what? Easy enough to prove that it didn't do them much good. They don't realize just how embarrassing this attitude is.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2015
"But this is often better than getting it from your ass which is where much of your 'science' "
-------------------------------------

You are everybody's ass, otto.

Pathetic.

Go heat your pool with your A/C.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2015
Thanks for showing us how little you know.
http://www.iflsci...ctricity
At a cost of several quadrillion dollars and cooked birds.
lots of batteries = environmental menace.
To compensate the intermittency/unavailability, the area must be much wider than calculated.

Furthermore, there are no laws prohibiting people from installing solar panels on their home's roofs nor placing wind turbines in their backyards, maybe they are not willing to go back to the medieval age too.

greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2015
WillieWard
Furthermore, there are no laws prohibiting people from installing solar panels on their home's roofs nor placing wind turbines in their backyards, maybe they are not willing to go back to the medieval age too.


You say something stupid. Your stupidity is pointed out. You just double down on your stupidity. Why do you think that renewable energy is the fastest growing energy segment? http://cleantechn...uary-us/
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2015
You say something stupid. Your stupidity is pointed out. You just double down on your stupidity. Why do you think that renewable energy is the fastest growing energy segment? http://cleantechn...uary-us/
yeah. fastest with subsidies, not caring about wildlife fatalities.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2015
yeah. fastest with subsidies, not caring about wildlife fatalities.


But you support subsidies for fossil fuels - and don't give a shit about the wildlife being killed by all the oil spills - how stupid is that.

In any case - my comment was in repsonse to your allegation that people "are not willing to go back to the medieval age". So you are wrong about that (renewables (including roof top solar) are the fastest growing energy segment).

Bird deaths from CSP have now been resolved - and there are no deaths from solar panels. You can't keep up I guess.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2015
Dreadful, a bird being slaughtered in midair by wind blade.
http://www.youtub...AzBArYdw

Wind turbines also emit polluting smokes, maybe as well to get smocked birds more delicious.
http://www.youtub...XoE3RFZ8
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2015
"What happens to a wind turbine in a big wind storm?"
http://i.imgur.com/mZs6Wqb.gif
http://www.youtub...uFvjtM0s

"Wind turbine blades fly off in storm"
http://www.dailym...ces.html
Imagine wind farms in severe hurricanes/tornadoes, blades flying off and slaughtering human beings and animals around, far much more fatalities than Fukushima tsunami.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2015
WillieWard - I'll see your "smocked bird" - and raise you a thousand dolphins, and a million sea birds (all from one oil spill).

http://www.livesc...ure.html

http://www.audubo...disaster
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2015
Wind farms carry associated radioactivity, rare-earth minerals, and toxicity.
"To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, ..."
"It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines."
"For perspective, America's nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America's electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States."
http://canadafree...ve-waste
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2015
"Wind energy is not nearly as 'clean' and 'good for the environment' as the wind lobbyists want you to believe."
"villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed."
"Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake's radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found."
"From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports."
http://canadafree...ve-waste
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2015
WilleWard - you really are an idiot. Read this -

Today there are hundreds of uses for REE, ranging from high tech (lasers, camera lenses, computer memory modules, x-ray machines), energy (batteries, lamps, superconductors) and industrial (aerospace, caustic cleaning agents, specialized glass) applications.


from - http://www.namibi...stry.asp

And you pick on wind turbines!!! Wonder why you will never acknowledge the environmental impacts of coal, oil, and gas - could you be bias?????

greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2015
Hey Willie - where is your post condemning the use of cell phones?

http://www.pbs.or...-phones/

You love coal right?

http://www.psr.or...ash.html
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2015
WilleWard - you really are an idiot ...
A crucial point is that nuclear power is not so bad after all as it has caused relatively low environmental impact per gigawatt generated even when if it (including Fukushima) is impartially (encompassing all aspects) compared with renewables.
"That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America's electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States."
"Wind energy is not nearly as 'clean' and 'good for the environment' as the wind lobbyists want you to believe."
http://canadafree...ve-waste
http://www.thecut...le=21777

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.