Groups protest wind power

[Frangible]

Wind farms get temporary reprieve

By Matt Carter, STAFF WRITER

Alameda County officials have taken the first step to renew permits governing wind farms in the Altamont Pass over the objections of environmental groups and state and federal agencies.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~1772185,00.html

Edit: fixed typo

[TennesseeWalker]

1. We really don't need to be fighting windmills.....

....I think we're going to need them. They're ugly, but they don't cause us to fight wars in the middle east.

[Dissenting_Prole]

14. They're ugly????

Not nearly as ugly as these things:

[Throckmorton]

27. You really think wind power will eliminate transmission lines?

Just curious.

[Kolesar]

28. I guess he could not pull up a smokestack pic so quick

A picture of a mutant fish from Lake Erie would have been good, too.

[Sagan]

2. why would an environmental group be against wind power?

Seems pretty important to me!

[WoodrowFan]

3. I think they can hurt birds. (NT)

[treepig]

9. yeah, there was a study funded by petroleum interests

that showed something like 92 birds were killed each year.

perhaps that's bad, but there's something like 92,000,000 birds killed each years by domestic cats.

(note: these figures are "ballpark" - if anyone recalls the precise figures kindly correct this information)

[wtmusic]

15. There you go--it's a cat problem

;-)

[Dissenting_Prole]

13. Yes, about 2 birds a year

Even if that's conservative, it's not nearly as many as are hit by cars and planes

[wtmusic]

4. Wind power as a practical source of energy is a myth

and will leave an ugly legacy for thousands of years. Go to San Gorgonio pass near Palm Springs, CA and look at what wind farms have done to beautiful natural desert.

[el_gato]

5. how is it a myth?

prove your assertions

[wtmusic]

6. The amount of electricity generated

for each windmill compared to the damage it does to the environment is not worth it. The windmills must be maintained; trucks going in and out destroy the surrounding environment; they're an eyesore.

California has some huge windmills ---some 3200 of them --- covering mountain sides in their windy areas. (Tehachapi, Altamont Pass, San Gorgonio) All together, they produce --- at a rare full wind --- about 300 MW, which is about 1/4 as much power as a moderately large nuclear power plant produces, and is less than 10% of the electricity the small state of Connecticut consumes.

This is at a *full wind*. Under normal conditions about 10-25% of that can be expected. So to get the same consistent output as a nuclear reactor we would need 64,000 windmills. If you've been to San Gorgonio you know what even 1,000 windmills does to the environment.

[Frangible]

7. so...

if hardcore environmentalists:

1) don't like fossil fuel (pollutes air)
2) don't like nuclear (produces nuclear waste)
3) don't like tidal (takes up habitat)
4) don't like wind (kills birds)
5) don't like hydro (kills fish / destroys river ecosystems)
6) don't like solar (takes up too much space / wildlife habitat)

What kind of power sources *do* they like?

[wtmusic]

8. Nuclear makes the most sense

Nuclear is by far the best source of energy we have to date. If you compare casualties from serious accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to the total atmospheric and health effects produced by the world's coal- and oil-burning plants, and compare the environmental "footprint" left by a nuclear power plant to that left by 64000 windmills or any other so-called 'natural' sources of energy there is no contest.

Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous, but relatively compact. Stored in Yucca Mountain we could expect it to be safe for 10,000 years. Preventing nuclear accidents and transporting to a repository like Yucca are the hard parts, and no expense should be spared in dealing with either. But those problems are far and away preferable to those created by alternatives.

[pmbryant]

11. Dealing with the waste is incredibly expensive

As you say: "no expense should be spared in dealing with (accidents and waste)". I certainly agree, but this expense serves to make nuclear quite expensive for society, and thus calling it "the best source of energy we have to date" is highly questionable.

Especially now that wind and other renewable energy sources are becoming less and less expensive, despite rather minimal subsidies compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.

--Peter

[wtmusic]

12. The environment shouldn't suffer

just because we want cheap energy. We'll all have to pay a little more, use a little less, and have a better planet as a result.

[NNadir]

18. I've been pushing nuclear energy for years as the safest alternative,

but it's been a hard sell. I've been pointing out these facts on Chernobyl and Three mile Island.

I disagree with you on wind power however. I think it is a viable form of energy, particularly in places where nuclear energy should be used with caution, particularly, California. I don't find windmills ugly at all. I find them charming, and I loved to drive past them when they were first built in the passes in California. I note that the Dutch have made lots of delft plates featuring windmills as designs.

I also disagree with the statement that nuclear "waste" is extremely dangerous. It is not more dangerous than the wastes of other forms of energy, since no one has been killed by them, whereas tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions have been killed since the adoption of fossil fuels by the various types of impacts they have involved. The perception of nuclear waste as "dangerous" is largely based on the assertion that extremely improbable events will in fact occur. There is as yet no experimental validation of these concerns. This important form of energy has in fact been demonized based wholly on supposition and fantasy.

It is NOT necessary, in my view to build Yucca mountain. There are better technological solutions than dumping. Dumping is a twentieth century idea. I am sure that by the end of the twenty first century most materials we be recycled. If you look carefully at the constituents of nuclear "waste" there are some very valuable materials in there.

The biggest risk from nuclear energy is weapons proliferation, although it can be argued that abandoning nuclear energy will actually raise proliferation risks in many ways.

[politicat]

19. Not Yucca Mountain.

Do a big favor. Find a geologically stable place. Thanks, but I'm downwind when the earthquake exposes all of that waste and dumps it into my mom's water. No thanks. Deserts, though empty, are not ideal for any sort of waste.

Preferably a big hole surrounded by solid (not porous) rock deep in the ground.

Until then, let the wind blow.

Pcat.

[zeaper]

20. NIMBY

The squawk of the great NIMBY.

A big reason Yucca Mountain was chosen is that it is a dessert-that means no water. So how is this stuff going to get to “your moms water”?

[pmbryant]

21. No

"No water" is a falsehood. There is water. Not much, but enough, given the fractured geology of the site.

And it is quite true that there are numerous potential safety problems with the Yucca Mountain site that make it far from optimal. The main problem is the Congress is only considering that one site, and has only been considering that one site for 16 years now. When problems are discovered, there is no alternative. Not exactly a wise safety move on Congress' part.

And this is not NIMBY, as I do not live in Nevada, anywhere near Nevada, and have no family in that part of the country either.

--Peter

[NNadir]

23. Whether or not it's NIMBY, there still is no credible failure scenario.

It is very difficult to show that water will in fact get to any canisters, solvate any radionuclides, leach into a public water supply or hurt any one.

If Yucca mountain is built, probably long before anything can happen to the canisters, future generations will be digging the stuff up to recover the valuable materials.

In any case, is there any concerns over the millions of tons of coal ash being dumped on our ground EVERYWHERE? What about the crap being pumped into the atmosphere? There's no elaborate theories here: Just real health consequences. Nuclear energy is NOT perfect; on the other hand it is one of the least objectional alternatives. The most objectional alternative, in my view, is the status quo.

[pmbryant]

25. Won't get any argument from me on coal

It is very difficult to show that water will in fact get to any canisters, solvate any radionuclides, leach into a public water supply or hurt any one.

If Yucca mountain is built, probably long before anything can happen to the canisters, future generations will be digging the stuff up to recover the valuable materials.

My understanding is that it's also very difficult to demonstrate that the proposed site is safe. Basically, it's a big crap shoot. Perhaps a justifiable one, perhaps not. I don't have a strong opinion on that. But the way in which Congress, the DoE, and the rest of the government are going about shoving Yucca Mountain down Nevada's throat with no alternatives under consideration leaves a lot to be desired.

--Peter

[pmbryant]

10. This isn't at all true for most environmentalists

if hardcore environmentalists:

1) don't like fossil fuel (pollutes air)
2) don't like nuclear (produces nuclear waste)
3) don't like tidal (takes up habitat)
4) don't like wind (kills birds)
5) don't like hydro (kills fish / destroys river ecosystems)
6) don't like solar (takes up too much space / wildlife habitat)

What kind of power sources *do* they like?

I'm not sure where you got all those assumptions from, but they are incorrect about the vast majority of environmentalists.

Wind power is great. The concerns over bird killing are greatly over-hyped by the forces who oppose non-fossil fuels, not by environmentalists. (The Altamont Pass issue described above appears to be a unique case, although I am not terribly familiar with it.) Solar power is great. Tidal/hydro/nuclear have their pluses and minuses.

Fossil fuels are not so great, but some are better than others, and we all need to reduce our use of these in order to help reduce the effects of global warming in coming decades/centuries.

So the proper route for power generation is a good mix of different technologies, with the goal of greatly-reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, especially the most polluting kinds like oil and coal. We urgently need to move away from the pure fossil-fuel society (with a little bit of nuclear thrown in) we have now.

--Peter

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

17. Palm and Altamont can be (and is being) repowered.

The turbines in these pictures are 30 to 60 kilowatt units. New units are on the order of 1.5 to 3.5 MEGAWATTS (the latter better suited for off-shore)

One 1.5 megawatt Nordex turbine can replace 50 of these older units. ALSO: the units can be spread farther apart, and would have tubular towers versus the lattice shown in the picture, eliminating raptor nesting opportunities and greatly decreasing potential "avian impacts" (birds getting smacked by rotor or running into the tower...

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

16. AVIAN FATALITIES PER YEAR:

Buildings: 500,000,000
Vehicles: 70,000,000
Power Lines: 87,000,000
Comm. Towers: 27,000,000
Wind Turbines: 25,000

house cats: unknown - but thought to be more than all the above combined

[Kolesar]

22. Nobody has successfully refuted wtmusic on Nukes vs. coal & wind

Nobody has successfully refuted wtmusic on Nukes vs. coal+wind
Windpower has a good price per kWh, but it only is putting out maximum power, for 25% of the time, so one should figure it costing much more per kWh
4 * $.03/kWh => $.12/kWh, which is like expensive Cleveland power

I find it hard to believe that we can even replace a quarter of our electricity generation with wind power.

Coal causes smog, global warming, and particulate pollution which causes disease. Coal emits mercury that has made Lake Erie fish unsuitable to eat. Coal emits other toxic metals. Coal mining destroys streams and wilderness.

Nuclear energy has not caused big fatalities in America, but I gotta tell you, we came damn close to disaster when a "football-sized hole" was found in the lid of the containment vessel at Davis Besse nuke plant on Lake Erie. That is an old, old plant with a deficient emergency cooling system. It should shut down permanently.

Are these French designed reactors really safe and cost efficient?

Fuel rods should be stuffed into billion-year old bedrock where there are no earthquakes, not into a more recent volcanic formation in Nevada. I still find it troubling to think that we can bequeath that nasty waste to future generations for 10,000 years. I expect that the government will change many, many times in that period, and some creep is going to extract and use that material to nefarious ends.

[NNadir]

24. I believe that the $0.03/kw-hr is a fully loaded cost, not weighted

for when the turbines are running.

Windpower facilities are not being built for demonstration purposes. They actually run and make money. They may not displace all of our energy demands, or even a great fraction of them, but whatever coal, oil, and natural gas they displace is to our advantage. There is no "magic bullet" in energy. We will have to mix environmentally sustainable solutions.

I note that the energy reserves of Thorium and Uranium will last only two or thousand years, even in a breeding system. That's lots of time, but it is not infinite. We should try to stretch this resource as long as we can.

On the subject of nuclear "waste," I keep saying this, these materials should be kept accessible. They are wastes maybe to this generation, but to future generations, they will be resources.

(Note: In a system of actinide recycling, the total radioactivity on earth will actually fall in about 1000 years wherever nuclear energy is used.)

[Kolesar]

26. Good answers

Add to that a conservation and efficiency program and we might not experience deprivation. If we have a few centuries of nuclear power available, humans can begin a global population-reduction plan to get us to a sustainable population. There are many other ideas.

[treepig]

29. total radioactivity on earth will actually fall in about 1000 years?

well that sucks, radiation is what's been keeping me alive for the past 1000:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

in any event, isn't total radioactivity falling in any event? or is natural decay currently being offset by cosmic radiation?

[NNadir]

30. The rate of natural radioactive decay for Thorium and Uranium is very slow

when compared with most long lived fission products. Essentially over a thousand year time scale they can be thought to be constant. They are falling, albeit slowly. In 1000 years, only one in every 15 million of the Uranium atoms now present will have decayed.

Uranium atoms are also in equilibrium with their (often highly) radioactive decay daughters. For Uranium-238 these are Thorium-234, Protactinium-234, Uranium-234, Thorium-230, Radium-226, Radon-222 (which leaches into basements and other closed spaces), Polonium-218, Lead-214, Bismuth-214, Polonium-214, Lead-210, Bismuth-210, and finally non-radioactive Lead-206. Thus, each atom of Uranium-238 left undisturbed will generate 13 radioactive nuclides, many of which result in exposures of human beings.

The scheme for radioactive U-235 and Thorium-232 are similar. (Thorium can be bred into fissionable U-233 to power reactors.)

When a Uranium atom is fissioned, they are of course destroyed. Thus the creation of the 13 isotopes in the decay chain is also stopped. Two generally radioactive species are formed, but some of these, like Iodine-131 have short half lives. (about 8 days for I-131) and decay to non radioactive species before they are even removed from the reactor. (They all so generate energy that is captured in the reactor.)

I'm not sure if radiation hormesis is real or not, but it is clear from epidemiological evidence that nuclear power plants cause far less damage to the environment than most of their competitors.

However, the faster something decays, the more radioactive it is. A particularly radioactive constituent of spent fuel is the trans-uranium actinides, neptunium, plutonium, americium and to a lesser extent, curium. While these can all be made to fission either via by breeding or by fast neutrons, they are more radioactive than Uranium and can persist for quite some time. (A typical isotope would be Americium-241 found in smoke dectectors that has a half life of 432 years.) If one buries the actinides, the decay advantage over natural Uranium via use of nuclear power will take about 10,000 years, because of the high radioactivity of the actinides. If however, one removes the actinides to recover the enormous energy they contain and fissions them, the long range radioactivity is greatly reduced, with less than 20% of the fissions resulting in long lived isotopes, principally Tc-99, Cs-135 and I-129. (These can be transmuted into stable elements.) All the other long-lived isotopes, like Cs-137 and Sr-90 have decayed in about a thousand years, thus leading to lower radioactivity than the Uranium ores from which they are derived.

[treepig]

31. thanks for the information

the one thing that i did already know, however, was that "the faster something decays, the more radioactive it is" - i just mention this point because i always have to chuckle when somebody brings up the fact that depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in an attempt to illustrate just how dangerous it is (but in reality, they're making exactly the opposite point). i tried to point this out in another thread and was promptly labeled a "depleted uranium apologist" who was a shill/skillful propagandist for halliburton/the bfee.

[NNadir]

32. Been there, done that.

It's almost impossible to talk to people about depleted Uranium. It's almost as bad as discussing Jesus. It's depressing as hell, since it's symptomatic of the poor state of general science education in this country.

There are other naturally occuring radioactive isotopes in the environment besides the members of the Uranium and Thorium decay series. Potassium has the radioisotope K-40 which represents the major source of internal irradiation for most people. You'd have to take a pretty large piece of Uranium shrapnel to match it on radiological criteria alone, not that I'm justifying taking shrapnel made of any element. An average 70 kg person has about 4000-5000 Beq of radioactivity from potassium. To match its activity you'd need about a third of a gram of Uranium. The potassium distributes more widely in the body of course, than does a piece of shrapnel, but the Uranium decay particles generate higher energies. The Uranium, however as shrapnel is largely self shielding. Only the alpha particles at the surface represent a danger, and then only if embedded or deposited in certain tissues.

The other source of radioactivity in the body is the potassium cogener Rubidium which is the most common element found in the body that has no known physiological role. Roughly 50% of naturally occurring Rubidium is radioactive Rb-85. An average person contains roughly 2/3 of a gram of Rubidium.

Human beings usually contain small amounts of Uranium, generally at a sub milligram level. The element, particularly depleted has a far greater risk as a chemical toxin than it does as a radiotoxin, at least under most circumstances.

None of these elements are generally involved in wind power though. :-)

[The Bish]

33. So much not to understand too

I'm always having to explain to people what exactly radiation is and what it does. It seems to have an almost mystical aura around it to most people when its actually not that difficult of a concept to understand. Maybe I should try to write a short concise introduction to nuclear physics over the winter break this year.

Jeff

[wtmusic]

34. Wow. Great info. You are hereby nominated as DU court physicist

Not realistic to expect that fusion will be practical in under 1K years?

[NNadir]

35. I'm not sure when Fusion will be practical...

but there is a sisyphian quality to the predictions of imminent success. I would expect it would be available in less than a century, but it is poorly funded, I think.

I pointed out on another thread here that because fusion will depend on tritium, which in turn depends on neutron bombardment of Lithium -6, fusion will be dependent on a well functioning fission industry. (Fusion reactors can never be made into "breeder reactors." This will be true at least until a more difficult deuterium-deuterium (D-D)reaction can be mananged and we're a long way from there. Were an economical tritium-deuterium system available however, one could probably get away with relatively few fission reactors, and of course, one could extend fissionable resources even further.

A containable D-D reaction may be centuries off. I just don't know.

[Flightful]

36. That's $0.03 plus subsidies

The only reason these windmills are "making" money is because they attract hefty subsidies and usually charge a 1-2 cent premium to their customers for being "green". Also adding to the cost is the fact that each watt of capacity has to be backed up by another source due to frequent outages; the Pickering Wind Turbine outside Toronto delivered just 18% of rated capacity last year, a rather pathetic figure. Oh yes, it would also take 500 to 1,000 windmills to produce the output of a single nuclear, gas or coal-fired unit.

[NNadir]

37. I can think of no form of energy that isn't subsidized in some way.

Certainly we just wrote a $87 billion dollar check to subsidize the oil industry, and we haven't even accounted for the environmental, health and safety costs. Coal plants are subsidized because they take no responsibility for their wastes, nor for the damage caused by strip mining and health damage to miners and persons in proximity to these plants.

Yes we can build a large coal plant that equals 1000 windmills, but is that a good idea?

Now, I'm a big believer in nuclear power, but only because I believe it has real environmental, health and safety advantages over competing strategies. I note that opponents of nuclear power will always focus on the worst run plants and try to extend them to the nuclear industry as a whole. If, we did the same for refineries, or any other form of energy I'm sure there'd be no gasoline sold on the planet.

The same applies to wind fields. Some wind fields, I'm sure, are better run than others. The fact remains, at least in my mind, that windmills are better than many alternatives.