The sign says, "Atomic energy? No thanks". It was 20 years since the reactor at Chernobyl melted down. That seems like a long time to us but it will be thousands of years before that area is inhabitable again. That is a long time. It doesn't take that long to repair a windmill or a solar cell...
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Atomic energy? No thanks.
The sign says, "Atomic energy? No thanks". It was 20 years since the reactor at Chernobyl melted down. That seems like a long time to us but it will be thousands of years before that area is inhabitable again. That is a long time. It doesn't take that long to repair a windmill or a solar cell...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It might not take long to fix a windmill or a solar cell but how much kW can they really produce? Pushing for more "clean" energy sources is good and important but keep in mind that what you will produce with a single nuclear plant is ridiculously higher than what you can dream of with wind or solar energy. Chernobyl was a terrible event however I am convinced that there is no alternative to nuclear power if we keep consuming electricity at this rate. Even if we, as indidual, become great energy saver in the future (what I doubt), industries will still consum the same amount if not more energy. Fossil energy or nuclear power are the only 2 viable energy sources to sustain the world demand for energy and my choice between the 2 is clear...but at local level, alternative energy sources (wind, solar...) need to be given more attention I agree.
Q: How much energy can a windmill produce?
A: That is of course dependant on how hard the wind is blowing. But a that typical 2 MW wind turbine on a good location can cover the electricity consumption for 500 households per year. The largest offshore wind farm is Horns Rev which is located 15 km west off the West coast of Denmark and produces 160 MW of power per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power). Offshore windfarms are considered desireable because the wind is generally more consitent over the ocean but increased maintenence due to corrosion and difficulties with accessibility can be a drawback.
[Horns rev]
source: http://birknielsen.duoweb.dk/web/files/vindmoller/horns-rev_3.jpg
But how does that compare to the old smoking, coal-burning, greenhouse gas swine that we use now? Typical coal-fired stations produce around 500-1000 MW, per year and burn 1-3 million tons of coal and produces about the same mass of carbon dioxide.
So to compare the power production, you need a few hundred windmills, (or 3 Horns Rev windfarms) to produced the same energy as a coal-fired power station.
Unlike conventional power generation, the production of energy from wind is not able to be regulated by demand and is regulated by the available wind conditions so wind along could not replace a coal-fired power stations. But if we are to take greenhouse gas reduction seriously then there is not going to be a silver bullet that can solve all of our energy demand/needs. Not even nuclear power, as you suggest.
Maybe nuclear can contribute some "clean" energy, or at least greenhouse gas free energy, but unless we start looking seriously at a range of options such as efficiency improvements, improvements to coal fire and gas power, wind, solar and wave power. The nuclear discussion is just an excuse for business as usual.
A
Post a Comment