http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=6477

Belgium 'needs nuclear to beat global warming'

8 April 2004

BRUSSELS - Belgium will not be able to honour a pledge to make significant cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions if it scraps its nuclear power stations, it was reported on Thursday.

The following is the most telling:

Citing a report by a key government advisory body, the 'Bureau de Plan', La Libre Belgique said nuclear power plants were a vital part of the country's strategy to cap emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which are strongly believed to contribute to global warming.

I was wondering when they were going to figure that part out. Scrapping those seven (or eight) reactors means losing something like 60% of their national power production, especially since they were planning to do it well before the reactors had reached their operating lifetime. All that power has to come from somewhere, and even if the import it, then someone else is generating it.

But never underestimate the power of the enviornmentalists. It's impossible to wage these sorts of arguements against them because they are beleived to have the defacto moral high ground. I knew they were going to have to come back to this issue again, but I think it's far from over. Next up we ought to be seeing the same sorts of things out of Germany. Never the less, my position remains firm:

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/nuclear.jpg

I think that Nuke power should only be an interim measure until we adequately develop renewable resources. I personally believe that modern nuclear power plants should be considered safe enough to build. But in reality they do have their own environmental issues, most poignantly the excess fuel rods. It's a double edged sword; one cannot definitively say it is better. But I agree that nuclear power is better for the environment then coal fired plants.

...and all around the world, pigs are taking to the sky as ice cubes erupt from the underworld, as Stokes and nico find something to agree on.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, that was a particularly well written response. In all honesty, your writing style has improved dramatically as of late.

PS. To whoever moved the thread, thanks, I wasn't really sure where it belonged.

Hmmmm, that assesment was made at least a couple of years ago and now it is being reported again? Why didn't that report you cite also cite the more recent assesment that Belgium could meet its commitment to the Kyoto protocol via energy efficiency improvements? http://www.eceee.org/latest_news/2003/news20030403.lasso

Ontario has by far one of the most acute problems with power and a recent commission has stated that nuclear power is that way to go.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1083017412707&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

The scene is not pretty here, what I fear from nuclear power is its inability/rigidity to change. I mean it is easier to retrofit a coal fired plant then a nuclear one. I don't want nuclear power personally, but it is not like we have much of an option. No one wants to see huge coal plants go up causing more pollution. I wouldn't mind natural gas, but that's expensive and resources seem to becoming scarce in NA. Since Canada singed on to the Kyoto accord it would have meet those targets which dictate that she has to have CO2 levels lower then her 1990 levels. It seems that nuke power is the only way, but I don’t think it’s the best way. Long term it has shown (at least in Ontario) it’s extremely expensive to operate, and maintain.

I saw a site today that I forgot to bookmark that stated that Ottawa had the least production per capita via so called green energy sources than the other provinces. I also see estimates that wind has a very large potential in most of Canada. Belgium is turning to wind and if they get smart, they will heed the report I posted immediately before and work to create cogeneration plants, more insulation, LED traffic lights, better public and private lighting and solar/project subsidies etcetera just like Canada should.

I also see that nuclear and coal companies do not want the distributed energy systems that are the low environmental impact, higher security and more employment methods of solar energy harvesting in its many forms. Big money interests can lobby with big money. They manufacture studies and reports. They have hit people long and hard from cradle to crave with propaganda and have many tied to a servile state reminiscent of die-hard religious fanaticism.

I think there is a common global problem, our lack of a functioning social system. So far cultural bias and entrenched powers decide policies. We need to make wise choices in the times ahead. These so-called governments are basically failing miserably. How do we winnow the grain from the chaff, the lies from the truth, the valid from the invalid? I doubt if it can or will happen in an online forum but computerized communications might eventually come up with something that works. We need functional society. All of the nation states are fantasy. We are thinking life on a planet and we are all on the same side. There is more than enough for all to have more long-lived freedom than we can begin to muster or imagine as long as we sustain the illusions.

A well balanced view of the issue is found here:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Nuke/solar.html

One can also hold the opinion that the book Edufer reviews on his web site presents a very biased view of the issue.

Yes, anyone can have his opinion. After all, we live in a decently free society. And who in this matter is not biased? Are the NRDC, EDF, Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, IPCC, etc, free of bias? I would like to hear who in this forum think those organizations give an objective and impartial view of the issues they deal with.

I don't see bias is a sin. Bias is a fundamental part of advertising, religions, sport fans, classic, jazz, rock music enthusiasts, art amateurs, etc. Even scientists are biased when it comes to comment on trheir research.

Somebody said that the primary duty of any scientist is to prove himself wrong. I find a lot of wisdom in there.

What does "All You Need to Know to Prove The Renewable Energy Economy Is a Hoax" have to do with belgians meeting the kyoto mandate and nuclear power?

In my view, it has a lot to do. Kyoto mandates CO2 emissions reductions. This means electric energy must come from other sources. As nuclear energy is shunned and strongly opposed by powerful organizations that have control to energy policies, the way to go – according to these organizations – is “alternative energy sources”, as solar power and wind generated energy. The Belgian government has made public its intention to foster alternative energies, especially wind (as Belgium is not such a sunny country) for their energy needs.

If people had the chance of knowing what is wrong (and good) about wind and solar energies, politicians in charge of making adequate decisions will see the fruitless efforts of pursuing wind generated energy. I am not too far out of topic. In case you think so, then what should I be posting? Just Belgium not meeting its proposed CO2 emissions reduction? That’s has been said, and there is not much else to say.

Belgium and other countries have a strong need to supply enough energy for their industries and other productive activities, and this means they have to produce it by any means, or buy it elsewhere – mainly from France. French electricity output is around 80% nuclear, some comes also from marine tides generating stations the mouth of the Rhone. If the Belgians are buying French electricity, they would be buying 80% nuclear electricity, something they seem to be against.

I see this as a hypocritical way of seeing things. Their moral forces them to phase out its nuclear station, but they bury their moral when buying nuclear electricity from France. So, are we allowed to speak about the benefits and inherent safety of nuclear power -as opposed to wind and solar energies - or would we be out of topic? :confused:

How about starting some of your own threads to embrace your crusades rather than hijack specific ones for your general purposes, Edufer? This thread is about Belgium meeting its accepted Kyoto agreements. The first post was a reference to a so-called news article that did not mention when the original report was done nor did it mention any of the more recent analysis which appears just plain ole biased in favor of nuclear energy, in short a piss poor piece of journalism or should I say thinly disguised propaganda. Still, Stokes Pennwalt has continually demonstrated more integrity and real ability to inform than yourself, Edufer, who appears to have very little sense of decency, little stomach for real debate and uses every trick in the book to spin, ignore argument and outright lie for your purposes.

I see, Edufer, in order to meet your desired hypothesis you must polarize this thread as being about solar verses nuclear power when the option of just getting more efficient has been brought into the discussion most appropriately.

Edufer, I find you so rude, so inconsiderate, so out of touch, so hegemonic, so outrageous and intolerant, so against science and reason that you bring down the entire quality of sciforums. I do think that in general this is something you would favor as you do not appear to cater to discussion and ignore any real criticisms and continually repeat your arguments even when people bring some fine analysis as to their limitations or outright inapplicability.

I really don't think you would mind if all of sciforums were shut down to help keep people from being aware.

Having you in the forum, I will never start any thread, knowing you will jump there just for insulting and absuing me. You are much more intolerant than anyone I have ever seen in many forums (except maybe David Mayes). You are an intolerant nazi. You are against everyone that has an opposing view, and instead discussing the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger. Grow up to democracy man!

Edufer: "Having you in the forum, I will never start any thread, knowing you will jump there just for insulting and absuing me."

Hmmm, you've started a number of threads already and I haven't made one comment in any. The evidence does not back up your paranoid claim.

Edufer: "You are against everyone that has an opposing view, and instead discussing the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger."

How does it go, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or some such? I doubt if that statement could be true about any one but you sure appear to come close with your own behavior. It is really quite amazing how fast you drop the recourse to citing evidence or discussing logic or understanding and instead resort to insult, to character assasination most often with easily apparent, no evidence or reason.

You are really quite an amazing and unique individual Edufer. I do not believe I have ever seen some one who appears to be as enamored with insult and sheer bulk of posting in disregard to logic or reason or facts than what I have witnessed from you. Yes, a most amazing personality, do you have a bio on the web somewhere or something? It would be quite educational to learn more of your life and its motivations. If it would be difficult for you to post such in public, I promise not to share it in any open forum if you wanted to PM me. I do find you to be quite amazing and interesting, Edufer. Your views on things in general I find alarmingly deceptive and extremely biased but yourself, that is a subject that is most intriguing.

I'm quite sure Al Gore is not one of your favorite people but did you happen to catch that recent speech of his "A Coalition of
Fear" (http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/Articles/arts146.html) where he quotes Senator Edmund Muskie as having stated some 33 years ago, "There are only two kinds of politics. They are not radical and reactionary, or conservative and liberal. Or even Democrat and Republican. There are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust."

Gore's speech was given in the context of the present political campaign. We cannot expect it to free of bias.

Had you searched our website, you would have found the "About Us page":

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/About-Us.html where you'll find pertinet information on who are our members and permanent contributors.

I can only say that is you who's hijacking threads to make your personal attacks on me and my dissenting opinions, while putting yourself in a moral high ground, free of criticism. If you persist in your attacks, you'll end up closing all threads where I participate. You are free to keep doing it.

By the amount of PM I got from sciforums readers I see you are giving yourself an exaggerate importance, showing you have a overinflated ego.

Self rightneousness usually leads to totalitarian behavior.

…he quotes Senator Edmund Muskie as having stated some 33 years ago, "There are only two kinds of politics. They are not radical and reactionary, or conservative and liberal. Or even Democrat and Republican. There are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust." Anyone that has ever read Maquiavelo, von Clausewitz, Marx, Ortega y Gasset, even Plato, knows there are many different types of politics.

Muskie makes a gross simplification for suiting his own means, and Gore quotes him because the claim seems appealing and fulfilling his political agenda. But it is not for me to discuss US internal politics, although it eventually will have catastrophic consequences for us in the Third World. What we see from the outside is that the US is ruled by one unique party (the Corporation’s, or Owners’ Party) with two internal branches: Democrats and Republicans, alternating in the administration according to the corporation’s interests.

But Gore, Muskie, and our personal problems are out of topic.

Heck, no worry, seems the moderation here is basically gone. Thank you for leading me to the "About Us" page on your site. I've learned more about Argentina's history and current affairs in the last hour than in perhaps most of the rest of my life.

Seems you came upon being a lieutenant shortly before the dirty war. Hope you didn't have to participate in any of that.

Here's a site that may apply to the subject at hand http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/raul.htm . I find others also that contend that the people of Argentina have lost faith in nuclear power as tenantable due to accidents, cover-up and general mismanagement there in Argentina, not Chernobyl, not TMI, not France. Ever meet Dr. Montenegro? Ah, neat to see some real champions for justice exist even there in Argentina, which incidentally now has quite the reputation for hate and racist web site sponsoring server farms. Must take even more courage to speak against the giants of corporate concerns there in Argentina where some seem to join the ranks of los desaparecidos up until the present time.

Mr. Chips, I am sending you my comments on Raul Montenegro by a PM because it has nothing to do with this thread's topic. I hope you enjoy the reading. But I know you will not.

I saw a site today that I forgot to bookmark that stated that Ottawa had the least production per capita via so called green energy sources than the other provinces. I also see estimates that wind has a very large potential in most of Canada.

I live in central canada, very flat and very windy. I've often wondered why we aren't throwing cash at wind power, it seems obvious. I mean we don't even talk about it, the only alternative I've heard discussed are bio-fuels. From what I've read they're not terribly efficient. Is something wrong with wind that I haven't read? It just seems like an obvious choice considering the geography and weather here.

As far as nuclear goes, now thats the shit. We're practically hemorrhaging uranium here and nuclear allows for a hell of a lot of power but if I recall there's a problem, what is that again? Oh yeah, waste that is so toxic simple physical contact can be fatal ... there's something else ... what is it again? ... right! 10,000 year half life with no safe place to store it.

Believe it or not I'm not totally anti-nuke but as incredible a source of power it is the waste (as of today) is totally unmanageable. There are no options to deal with it, none.

Here is a February 2002 study that basically concludes that wind energy holds just about the greatest potential of all possible energy sources for Ontario http://www.newenergy.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf

Here's the Canadian Wind Energy Association http://www.canwea.ca/en/

Though I will basically agree with your statements, buffys, you will find that some will disagree with the statistics you claim, specifically the danger of nuclear wastes and the time involved for its storage. Good that you are not totally anti-nuke because in the final analysis, that is what solar energy is despite the claims of so-called experts who commonly state that we have yet to know how to use fusion. This general anti-science stance is common and quite telling and frightening when one realizes that fools are playing with high potential energy schemes while embracing such fantasy. Perhaps some of the disregard for wind energy's potentials is the cognitive dissonance that would have to be over come, the realization of the great danger that is embraced and sanctioned by big money currently. Recognizing the good means seeing the bad and this rationality is too distasteful to many.

Consider the economic impact, wind energy is a distributive source. It's development does not support most profits going into few hands. Nuclear and coal impact present profit making relationships more favorably from an oligarchy supporting standpoint than the sources that would employ more and require less specific skilled labor and more immediate public profit. I hold the opinion that the barrier to wind use is more social than technological. It is perhaps some of the worst aspects of our social structures that lead to wind energy not getting the brunt of public relations support or private interest sponsorship.

Edufer, evident with your first post here and in the PM to me and common to perhaps all of your posts in this forum and on your web site, you present interpretation or opinion as fact. For example in the PM to me, you suggest that the time frame of your quasi military service, regretably in your eyes, did not allow you to partake in the anti-communists efforts that were claimed as the justification for the kidnapping and subsequent murdering of what I understand to be anywhere from fifteen thousand to thirty thousand people, los desaparecidos. In my opinion, communism and capitalism are not firm concepts and usually the reasoning of power elites verses public empathy, a ruse, an excuse of those who would consider their general philosophical beliefs as fact rather than opinion. The idea that the "dirty war" was justified as efforts to quash the development of a Cuba type regime in Argentina appears more projection than reality.

Edufer, in light of your common presentation of opinion as fact, it is reasonable and continually demonstrated that one should not trust your often general and wide sweeping pronouncements. It is this same mixing of opinion with fact that perhaps gives you the tendency to lie and promote misinformation as the ends of your efforts become more important than the means, a common fallacious result of someone who has come to have a crusade more than attempting to find joint understanding, communication and education to promote sound and intelligent policy. At least this attitude keeps you off of the hit lists. I dare say, from what I see on the web, the fear mongering, hate industries that are more prevalent in Argentina that other places, are not considered all that profitable over other countries that exhibit similar incidence of sponsorship and hosting for hate/racist web sites. Don't quit your day job.

buffys, you will find that some will disagree with the statistics you claim, specifically the danger of nuclear wastes and the time involved for its storage.

Thats a fair point, I pulled the 10,000 years number out of the air. I can't back that up at all. I was basically saying the waste stays very dangerous for a very long time, successful containment would require an extremely long term commitment. Since maintaining consistent funding for things as fundamental as education and health care for as little as 5 years in a row is beyond us I get nervous about the idea of handling nuclear waste over generations. Especially when the slightest mistake can be catastrophic.

I've read about different possible techniques to render the waste inert but as far as I know none have been successful so far. If one is ever proven to work (and equally important that its economically feasible) then I'd be 100% behind nuclear power, aside from the waste it's an extremely clean and efficient power source.

[quote]”… you present interpretation or opinion as fact.[quote]I am afraid that statement applies to you as well, because you are taking second hand information (opinions) in an issue you have not witnessed, and I have lived in the hard way.

Regarding “desaparecidos”, the CONADEP (the commission investigating the issue of desaparecidos) files used for judging the Junta, presented 1,643 folders , one for each “desaparecido”, as denounced by their families. Subversive delinquents killed in action against the army and police, varies but it is agreed that were about a similar number. That would give a round figure of 3,000. But 1,643 “desaparecidos” was not the impressive figure needed by the left for their propaganda. It is ironic that the left was making such a fuss about 3,000 fallen guerrilleros when at the same time they were (and still are) praising Ché Guevara as a hero.

In the days following the Revolution arrival to power, Guevara was appointed chief of the sordid La Cabaña fortress, a military prison where 16,000 people were executed in about 6 months. Among the prisoners were members of the Traffic Corps (officers who controlled traffic and gave away traffic violation tickets). When Guevara’s buddies told him that these people had not committed any crime and shouldn’t be executed, he replied (written down in historical documents) “It does not matter. They wore uniforms, isn’t it? We must set an example. Shoot them!” So much for the nobility of Cuban and other leftist revolutions.

Almost the entire guerrilla force (Montoneros and ERP) escaped to Nicaragua and Europe, mostly France and Spain, and formed the long “unofficial” list of desaparecidos. I have many personal friends and some relatives that went that way. By early 1984, they began to return to Argentina and resumed their lives. This has been thoroughly proved when news and proofs started to reach the newspapers last year, giving the names of such prominent people as judges on charge of resonant cases that were in the “desaparecidos” official list. Even the newly appointed Supreme Court judge, the first woman ever to enter the body, was in the official list. They said they never applied for erasing their names from the list because they “considered an honor to be there”. So much for their honesty and integrity.

So the “official” list soon became, by means of repeating it (Lie, lie, lie, something always stays…”) to 6,000, a few months later to 15,000 and finally to 30,000. But those official files presented by the families remain as a fact, not as an opinion.

To show you how popular these “desaparecidos” and their quest are with the Argentinean population that had to suffer their revolutionary, violent actions, President Kirchner inaugurated a “Museum for the Memory” in the place many of the desaparecidos were in detention. Most governors didn’t go to the ceremony, and the press and the people were very critical about this thing of keeping the wound open. They even took off pictures of some generals and former governors and mayors from the buildings walls they were hanging. The press just went wild ridiculing it. Kirchner was a Montonero, and has acknowledged that he made a mistake in bringing back memories that would be much better buried. What if Japanese and Germans had kept open the wound caused by the heinous crimes of Hiroshima and Dresde? People in Argentina consider Montoneros and ERPs as criminals, and don’t want to hear any more about them.

Let’s stick to nuclear power.

Buffy, what you say has a lot of common sense, when viewed from the side of normal people with not enough knowledge of the scientific and technical matters involved. What you say is representative of what the regular citizen has heard and read in the media through the years. So let me give you a brief introduction to the scientific facts.

First of all, you must keep in mind what late Dr. Dixie Lee Ray said: “For all those who don’t like radioactivity, the Earth is no place to live.” The simple fact is we inhabit a radioactive world, always have and always will. Our bodies receive the impact of about 15,000 radioactive particles per second – that’s 500 billion per year, and 40 trillion in a lifetime. We don’t feel them or suffer any apparent ill effect from this constant bombardment.

Even our body has a considerable amount radioactivity that you can measure with a properly calibrated Geiger counter. The isotopes are called Potassium-40, and we have about 0.1 microcuries of it, and the same amount of Carbon-14. Background radioactivity is so high in many places in the world, as Kerala, India, Morro do Ferro, Brazil, Córdoba, Argentina (my province), most of Norway, and many other places around the world, that if we were to strictly apply the radiological protection regulations, the populations from those places had to be evacuated!

Safety: Nuclear power generation has the biggest safety record in all kinds of power generation, even if you include Chernobyl. In the case of your country, Canada, back in 1984 the casualties directly related with nuclear power generation, after several decades of operation, was1. A pickup from Bruce nuclear station collided in the highway with another car and a woman was killed. Present nuclear stations, especially the fourth and fifth generation models are extremely safe, more efficient, and cheaper to build and maintain.” But what worries most people, like your, is the radioactive waste issue. Well, the only problem remaining in the issue is merely political. It is the political decision by governments (mostly ignorant politicians) to implement the available techniques fro recycling nuclear waste. If recycling is such an issue for the environmental movement, why they refuse so stubbornly to recycle nuclear waste. The scientific and technical matters are solved and at hand, they are available but need the political decision to implement them. So let’s learn something about nuclear waste.

You said : I've read about different possible techniques to render the waste inert but as far as I know none have been successful so far. If one is ever proven to work then I'd be 100% behind nuclear power, aside from the waste it's an extremely clean and efficient power source.

I will excerpt and quote parts of the excellent book by Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, “Trashing the Planet”, about the nuclear waste chapter. The book deals with the scaremongering promoted by the extreme environmental movement, and deals with issues as acid rain, pesticides, chemicals in the environment, nuclear energy, and alternative sources of energy. Dr. Ray was governor of Washington state and chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, and recipient of many awards, including the United Nations Peace Award.

Excerpts:<dir>“In fact, there a many ways to take away the radioactivity from spent fuel rods, concentrate radioactivity in a very small volume (4% from the original volume) leaving 96% of Low level waste that can be managed without special equipment, clothing, or shields. But we must know first what are the kinds of radioactive waste the nuclear activities produce (including nuclear medicine) They are grouped in three categories: Low Level Waste (LLW), High Level Waste (HLW) and Transuranic (TU). The latter includes wastes, whether low level or high, that contain elements heavier than uranium (hence the name “transuranic”) in amounts greater than 100 nanocuries per gram.”

“We’ll start with Low level wastes that account for only 1% of the radioactivity – but 99% of the volume – of all radioactive wastes. LLW are those with an activity of 0.01 curies per kg. That’s about 1 billion times less than radioactivity in HLW. LLW comes mainly from industrial activities – for example, nondestructive testing which, along with medical waste and research uses – accounts for about 43%, by volume. The remaining 65% comes from nuclear power plants, and it includes the solidified radioactive nuclides removed from cooling water, protective clothing, and cleanup materials.”

“Laws ruling radioactive “waste” are really queer. Lots of radioactive products in the market are exempt of regulation (and this shouldn’t alarm you), For example, smoke detectors do not have to be sent to a nuclear repository, although its operation relies upon americium. Luminescent dials, watches, clocks, and instrument from airplanes, all of which contain tritium, and a home product know by everybody, Coleman lanterns, whose mantles contain thorium, are exempt. “

“Finally, some waste that contains small amounts of radioactivity falls outside of the laws, simple because it comes from activities not considered “nuclear”. Burning coal is one of these – and remember that there are 5 million pounds of coal waste for every pound of nuclear. The head of Great Britain’s Central Electricity Generating Board said back in 1988:

<dir>”Earlier this year, British Nuclear Fuels released into the Irish Sea some 400 kg of uranium, with the full knowledge of the regulators. This attracted considerable media attention and, I believe, some 15 parliamentary questions.”

“I have to inform you that yesterday the CEGB released about 300 kg of radioactive uranium, together with all its radioactive decay products, into the environment. Furthermore, we released some 300 kg of uranium the day before that. We shall be releasing the same amount of uranium today, and we plan to do the same tomorrow. In fact, we do it every day of every year so long as we burn coal in our power stations. And we do not call it “radioactive waste”. We call it coal ash.”</dir>
The same thing happens in Canada, the USA, and the rest of the world. Of all industries, the nuclear industry alone has taken responsibility for its wastes from the beginning. Yet, ironically, since in the Western countries no one has ever been hurt or contaminated, it is the industry most often criticized for its waste management practices.”

DISPOSAL: “Although all scientific evidence supports the safety long-term (many centuries) isolation deep underground in our already highly radioactive earth, opposition continues. Yet, if all nuclear waste were put into the ground, that would increase the amount of radioactivity in the top 2,000 feet of soil in the US by only 1 part in 10 million.</dir>I want you to have this quite clear: if we already have 10 million parts of radioactivity in any given place of the territory, with all nuclear waste buried in underground repositories the amount of radioactivity would go up to 10 million and 1. It would be ridiculous to get worried for that.”<dir>“But here are two much better ways to get rid of nuclear waste: RECYCLING. First, scientists at the Argonne National laboratory have synthesized an entirely new susbstance named CMPO (for octyl [phenyl]-N,N,diisobutylcarbamoyl-methylphosphine oxide), which is capable of selectively isolating transuranics from the rest of the nuclear waste . (Horowitz, E. P, 1986, “New Radioactive Waste Treatment Could Save Taxpayers Billions,” Logos, national Argonne Laboratory, Progress Through Science, vol 4, No. 3, Autumn 1986, pp. 6-9).”

“Extraction can be accomplished in conjunction with both nitric and hydrochloric acid solutions. By removing the TRUs, the remaining waste falls under the definition of Low Level Waste and hence it is easier to handle and manage economically. The removed TRUs are in a factor of 100 to 1,000 times less in volume and can be solidified and vitrified. This procedure can save billions in waste disposal costs.”

“Second, it has been know from long that exposing radioactive atoms to intense bombardment by neutrons can cause reversion to the stable state. In other words, radioactive waste can be rendered non-radioactive by treatment in a neutron-producing reactor. Such reactor has long been developed. It is the Argonne National Laboratory Integral Fast Reactor, which produces an abundance of fast neutrons.”

“Good sense would dictate the early construction of this fast reactor for the purpose of “burning” nuclear waste. How much better to destroy the radioactivity than to bury it! But no one has accused the US nuclear policymakers of making decisions based on good science, favorable economics, or common sense.” </dir>Buffy, make yourself a big favor and get Dr. Dixie Lee Ray’s book. It is enlightening and you will start to see the world in a different way. You’ll get rid of your worries and fears. You can get it through Amazon.com.

well to address you're first part I never stated any qualms with reactor safety to begin with, as I said it's just the waste that concerns me.

As for the waste part of your response you were quite right in saying I don't know all the current research but when I said, "from what I've read" I was basically saying just that. Though, I find it hard to believe the radioactive material in a watch can be legitimately put in the same catagory as nuclear waste.

I am always wary of info funneled through one source (you in this case) but I am curious how much of what you said is fact and what is theory or supposition. Some interesting points though, I'll have to see what I can find.

Yes, best to formulate your own opinion. A start might be to look at the long lasting discussion in this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32882

If you want a guide as to what is most likely false, you can basically look at Edufer's web site which you can find by looking at his particulars. He has a very biased and quite radical neoliberal perspective on most anything which means he only references data that supports his desired views and ignores virtually anything else. He has lied numerous times in this forum basically in an attempt to avoid discussion of salient points by invoking false ad hominems. For an example, look at the last couple posts in the GMOs thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34934

Good answer. You must never trust information coming from no one. Always make the questions that bother you, ask for facts, and compare them against well known facts (established laws in physics, chemistry, biology, etc). Don’t trust in claims that are lacking scientific basis. All the tech and scientific data I have provided can be checked elsewhere.

And paint in clocks and watches are indeed radioactive material as the old models contained radium, and the new ones contain tritium. They become “radioactive waste” when they are disposed of. But common sense tell us that the amount of radioactivity in them is trifle and must be regarded as innocuous. However, this show the many absurdities contained in radiological protection regulations, the first and biggest one: the “Lineal no-threshold” theory in which regulations are based. This theory claims that any dose of radioactivity, even the smallest one, will cause harm to the cells. This contradicts completely the “Hormesis” theory, that is, the beneficial effects of small doses of toxic substances or radioactivity, that has been totally proved beyond doubt. Just think of vaccines, a small dose (attenuated virus) of a disease, that strengthen the immune system.

The same applies to radioactivity, that according to UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiations), “Low levels of ionizing radiation have been found to be of immense benefit for the health of human beings and animals, providing stimulatory effects at biochemical, cellular, and organic level, leading to an increase of immunity against cancers and infectious diseases and an increase of longevity and fertility”.

Please note this is not misinformation, as it is an official statement by a United Nation’s highly respected scientific body. The statement was made back in April 1994, after 12 years of reviewing the entire medical and scientific literature. Make a Google search on "hormesis” and see what you find. Also on UNSCEAR or his former president, Zbigniew Jaworowski.

Mr. Chips, your constant ad hominem attacks to me only play against you. You never refute the information I provide, but simply concentrate in your personal attacks. keep doing it, please. As Napoleon said: "Never stop your enemy when he is making mistakes."

By the way, I am quite anti-neoliberal, as this philosophy and theresulting policial and economic theories have played havoc in my country. Just concentrate on providing your own scientific data, not just links to highly biased websites. And if I were to count the times you told lies... well, most people in this forum know you and have advised me to pay no attention to you.

Of all the pipe dream nostrums existent in the energy industry at the moment, wind and solar are tied for the "biggest crock of bovine excrata" title.

Both are location-contingent, which is to say that you're restricted in where you can deploy them.

Both do not have sufficient yield to fuel the world's ever-increasing energy demands.

Both do not scale linearly with increasing density, as other forms of power (including nuclear) do.

These three drawbacks marginalize them as major sources to be relied upon. Of course, there is and will always be a place for them, but it will never be anything substantive in the overall amalgam. Head on over to the thread Mr. Chips linked to to learn more.

Hmm, I suppose that February 2002 study was just more corrupt science? Stokes, what do you think of that study that claims Belgium can more than make up for its Kyoto promises with just efficiencyf alone? Do you consider the article you placed here as the subject of this thread to be decent journalism?

Edufer, anyone who can begin to believe "most people in this forum know you and have advised me to pay no attention to you" might be someone who can swallow your biased and extreme perspective. If they are to swallow blatant lies, then why not your grand plans for the world?

Here are a couple of sites that relate the history and climate of Dixy Lee Ray's books:

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/science/aq-political.html

http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r503.html

Apparently Rush Limbaugh found this book to be most useful to cite for his dissertations against "environmental wackos."

Here's a review of Ray's book "trashing the Planet":

Come on, people! Simply put, believing Dixy Lee Ray's conclusions is like thinking professional wrestling is real. Through a series of half-truths, bad science, and a willful misrepresentation of atmospheric chemistry, Ray makes the case that global warming isn't happening, acid rain isn't real, and that pesticides really aren't all that dangerous...all in 200 odd pages! Well, at least she doesn't include any meaningful footnotes or references to hinder the readability of her text. Don't be fooled by this piece of pro-business, pro-corporate, irresponsible propaganda. If you're really interested in this sort of thing, head on down to your local college or community college and sign up for an introduction to geology class. Just about anywhere you go (with the possible exception of Bob Jones University), you'll find that what much of what Ray proposes isn't taken the least bit seriously by any scientist in any field. Ray knew that if you're buying this book, let alone reading it all the way through--that you really don't know that much about geology or atmospheric science, and even less about the whole concept of backing up your work with foot notes, end notes, and peer review-and that you will just go along with it. "Why would she make THIS up" you ask? Well, by getting you to go along with weakening or elimination of environmental regulation, huge polluters stand to make BILLIONS off of your land, your water, and your air. Go back to sleep, America, The Corporation is in control.

BTW, Edufer, you misspell Dixy Lee Ray's name.

I got that review from http://engineering-books-online.com/0060974907.html

Two out of three reviews there found the book to be basically trash. The one that is favorable is quite telling in how it refers to public schools and the "liberal media."

Hey, Edufey, instead of the blanket assertion that I have made many lies, please cite some or even one. I have cited a few made by you directly. Can you not afford me the same decency rather than the blanket condemnation? You have quoted me as calling you "misinformer" and "paid liar" in the GMOs thread. I suggest that those quotes attributed to me were flat out lies, flat out creation of bogus misinformation. That GMO thread is not long. You should be able to prove that you did not lie in those two instances. You will not do so. I repeat, YOU WILL NOT DO SO! You are a liar, Edufer. One can not trust anything you post.

Edufer, you may consider me your enemy as you infer from your quote of Napoleon. I do not consider you as my enemy or even Stokes or MacM. My enemy is anomie, thick and persistent, bringing voice to callous disregard for science, for our common humanity, our common needs and desires. I pity you and your alienation from reason.

Wow. Five posts in a row with nobody in between. That's got to be some kind of record for an incoherent soliloquy around these parts.

As for your post that was in response to mine, you really failed to address anything I said. I tried to keep it short and use small words, but obviously it wasn't simplistic enough.

First of all Stokes, to consider wind and solar as distinct and separate just begs the question as to whether or not those blurbs of yours were in ernest or just foaming. We've also discussed site dependence of solar technologies before, remember when I posted some of the recent data on the extent of the North American grid and the drive to make it global? Any technology that produces power that can be added to the grid of power lines can supply energy to far and wide. I guess with your separation of wind from solar you may be implying that solar is just photovoltaics or furnaces and not including hydrological, biomass or ocean thermal differentials so then it is easier to state "Both do not have sufficient yield to fuel the world's ever-increasing energy demands" though I don't see where that has anything to do with this specific thread. Still, when you factor in all solar sources, one must admit that there is a great potential there unless, of course, one wishes to remain myopic in ones presumptions.

"Both do not scale linearly with increasing density, as other forms of power (including nuclear) do."

You will need to explain what you mean by this in order for me to comment.

So, what do you think of that study that claims Belgium can more than meet its Kyoto commitment with efficiency measures? Do you consider the first article you placed here as an example of sound journalism?

If you are really more concerned with how things are posted, five small bites instead of the long winded blasts that Edufer and yourself have often shown as a modus operandi, then I wonder as to whether or not your views are more religious in nature than of substance, that can respond to substance rather than picking on the mode of presentation.

As far as being a soliloquy, I realize attempting to communicate to you or Edufer seems quite meaningless but hopefully there are others who find this interesting and are more concerned with substance rather than presentation. That picture you posted at the start of this thread begs the question, are you more concerned with appearance than substance?

Stokes, do you realize that you seem more intent on degrading a poster on the basis of inconsequentials at times rather than hold a coherent discussion?

According to the United States Department of Energy wind derived energy sources have the potential of supplying more than one and a half times current US electrical power use.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html

Those are good news. The bad news is the DOE's study implies that the one and half times current US electrical power use would be met if 100% US territory is covered with "wind farms". Americans would have to move elsewhere! :D

Ah, Edufer? The department suggests only 6% of the contiguous US land area would give this power production. Maybe you should catch a few more winks and see if your brain can get in gear before engaging the motor mouth.

The problem with you, Mr. Chips, is that instead of a brain you have a blob of frozen yoghourt. What the DOE’s study talks about is “installed capacity”, not output energy

Here are the facts: One single combined-cycle gas-fired power plant of 1000 Mw capacity, relatively clean as to emission of greenhouse gases, and not built on pristine landscapes, normally and reliably produces 800 Mw at all times, day and night, year-round without interruption. To produce the same amount of electricity using wind turbines, which on a yearly basis work at 30% of their capacity due to the fluctuating nature of the wind, one would need: 3,555 wind turbines of 750 Kw capacity each, or 2,666 wind turbines of 1 Mw capacity each, or - 1,333 wind turbines of 2 Mw capacity each.

Any of these numbers - 3,555/2,666/1,333 - involves degrading considerable extensions of countryside with obtrusive 300 to 500 foot structures, their associated tension lines, their access roads, their irremovable rock-embedded concrete bases, their electric transformer sub-stations, etc.

As a wind plant may include anywhere from 1 to 400 or more turbines, say 50 on average, we are talking about 71/53/26 plants, respectively - to produce the same amount of electricity as one single gas-burning plant wisely built in an industrial zone. One being erected near Carcassonne, France, is 175 meters high.

So the first negative effect of using this renewable energy is to multiply the number of industrial plants by anywhere from 26 to 71 times. The second is to erect these industrial structures in heretofore-preserved landscapes, because wind turbines are normally established where the wind blows strongest: on highly-visible hill-tops, mountain slopes or shore lines. There, they stand to be seen from at least 20 miles around on a clear day. Meaning that a single wind plant has the potential of degrading the scenery of 1256 square miles (20 miles x 20 miles x 3.14). Multiply this by 26, 53, 71 plants and you may affect 32,000, 66,000 or 89,000 sq miles of countryside for an amount of electricity you could produce with a single conventional plant built out of sight. To compare this with something tangible: The UK covers an area of 94,251 sq miles.

But England wants to erect about 20,000 turbines by 2020, to produce 20% of British electricity. So we are talking about potentially spoiling 502,400 sq mi of countryside (1256 x 20,000/50), i.e. 5 times the size of the country. So, either wind plant density will have to be 5 times greater than my original premise, or each plant will have to include 5 times more turbines - or a combination of both. In whichever case, quality of life in the UK will be impaired for all: countryside residents, commuters, travelers, vacationers, seamen, and tourists alike.

The United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, among others, have similar plans. Two hundred years of careful land management segregating industrial zones from residential, agricultural and wilderness areas are being discarded everywhere, in the hype surrounding wind power. The face of the world is about to change forever.

All of this for zero benefits in terms of climate change. In a report released the 30th of August 2002 by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering: -

"The Energy Review places great faith in wind energy and proposes installing 22,000 MW of turbine capacity by 2020. However, Met Office data shows that the country's wind record is not dependable. The most likely power output in real life is less than 7,000 MW. To ensure the supply it would have to be backed up by 16-19,000 MW of conventional generation plant, adding an extra £1 billion to the cost."

The Engineers' report also warns:

"The Energy Review sets a target of generating 20 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. While this is a laudable aim it is over-optimistic and fails to address the fundamental problem with all renewable sources: they are intermittent. Experience on the Continent, especially in Denmark, has shown that grid stability can be adversely affected when the penetration of intermittent renewables reaches about 15 per cent".

This, and other considerations such as the financial burden for the State, the negative impacts on people, tourism and the environment, prompted the new Danish cabinet to announce the end of subsidies to the wind industry.

California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of wind power, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a swimming pool are poured into the landscape all over the world? Before countless pylons are added to the landscape? Before the horizon is marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the birds? And for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?

Here is the first statement on that DOE site,

"Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States."

Edufer, you have made a very blatant lie, again. I think I'll go do some thing else right now rather than read the rest of your post at the moment. A rough look and I see you do not refer us to any URLs. That's okay, but when you show a capacity to promulgate misinformation the onus to provide citation and documentation falls squarely on you to reestablish some trust. Can't just take things on your word alone when you go about lying and then try to cover it up with some obtuse spin.

You put "installed capacity" in quotes. I don't see that anywhere on the referred web site, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html Want to cite exactly where you got that? Maybe you are just zealous in how you apply quotation marks? Can you prove that you didn't lie? Just in case you feel inclined to edit your post to remove the lie, I quote en toto

Edufer: "Those are good news. The bad news is the DOE's study implies that the one and half times current US electrical power use would be met if 100% US territory is covered with "wind farms". Americans would have to move elsewhere!"

Stokes, you ought to get this guy to clam up, he is not helping your position at all. I attempted to respond to your (ah, can't call them questions or even statements for that matter, maybe) list of assumptions. Can you answer at least the two questions I have placed here for you? Do you think the article you used for this thread is decent journalism? What do you think of the study that claims Belgium can more than make its Kyoto commitments via efficiency measures?

Mr. Chips, please warm up the frozen yoghourt you have instead of a brain. My post, as quoted by you: Edufer: "Those are good news. The bad news is the DOE's study implies that the one and half times current US electrical power use would be met if 100% US territory is covered with "wind farms". Americans would have to move elsewhere!"

So that’s a lie? Are you nuts? I didn’t say DOE “claims” it will take the entire US territory. If you cared to read the posts I make instead on just jumping to my throat, and took the trouble of making some easy calculations, you’d see that, for the area needed for supplying wind power equivalent to one and a half times the present energy needs of the US, you’d need to cover if not all, most of the US territory.

If for getting just and extra 7.000 mW of power in England (7 one mW nuclear or conventional stations) you need between 32,000 to 89,000 square miles, figure out how many turbines you’d need for equaling the output of 114 US nuclear stations. And this about 20% of the US generating power! You are really dumb!

And when they refer to wind power generation they will ALWAYS state “installed capacity” or "potential output", not real constant output. You should have known that by now. If you didn’t, now you know.

I provide weblinks when it is appropriate, but somebody warned you (Tristan, the moderator) that 90% of the web is full of crap. The internet is no holy word, nor the ultimate judge of opinions. If you feel you are being beat hard with the facts we provide, then go away. Yoghourt!

Stokes, this guy is getting nervous.

Edufer, spin all you want but the details are here for any one to see that you have posted an unmitigated lie.

I demand you to point where is my lie!

As you seem to have five thumbs when it comes to math, I have made the calculation for you. Pay attention because I won't be trying to improve your education:

Data from: http://www.reference-guides.com/cia_world_factbook/United_States/Economy/Electricity__production/

Power generated in the US in 2000: 3,799.94 billion kWh (2000)

This means: 3,799,940 mWh

For an increase of 7,000 mWh of additional power, according to the British experience, it is needed 89,000 miles^2.

Let’s convert square miles to square kilometers:

1 mile^2 = 2,56 km^2.
89,000 square miles x 2,56 = 227,840 km^2

Simple Rule of three:

7,000 mWh ------------ 227,840 km^2
3,799,940 mWh -------- X

7,000 mWh : 227,840 km^2 :: 3,799,940 mWh : X

X = 227,640 x 3,799,940 / 7,000 = 123,574,048 km^2

United States area: 9,363,124 km^2.
Required area for replacing present stations with wind power: 123,574,048 km^2.

Earth’s Oceans: 688,487,000 km2
Emerged land: 295,065,857 km2
Total: 983,552,857 km2

You would need a little more than 12,5% of Earth's surface for wind power to provide one and a half present US electricity production. Perhaps it is not me but the DOE study who is lying? Or at least giving some missinformation?

edufer stated

begin quote

And when they refer to wind power generation they will ALWAYS state “installed capacity” or "potential output", not real constant output.

end quote

Well apparently not at the site in question, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html

Appears to me that when one spins to protect a lie one can create more lying, as you have demonstrated here. You have a problem with superlatives, Edufer. I went for a long walk at one of my kid's schools today and I met a friend of a friend who stated he had 60 hundred million thousand games at home. Seeing that the guy was only about 6 or 7 years old, I cut him some slack but you really should know better.

The extreme statements that are obviously false, the use of nonliterals, figurative speaking which basically constitutes flaming, those do not increase the apparent integrity of your opinions. Make a lie and then another in an attempt to cover up the former and trust can be completely and reasonably lost. I don't know if your statistics are correct or not but to do some basic extreme spin of what that site says and then to go about atttempting to do more of the same that is also obviously false, I am more inclined to believe the DOE than anything you say.

I don't know if the DOE is presenting misinformation or not but that is where you should have leveled your first accusation rather than grossly misinterpret their own words to suit your beliefs, at least twice now. It's not difficult to see though may get a little more buried as you heap the spin on.

By the way, I do believe that one usually has recourse to flaming and other gross mistatements when they shut down their thinking processes in an apparent response to perceived threat, moving into the flight or fight syndrome. You appear to be in a state of panic. I worry some about the future for my kids and grand-kids and really, for any kids anywhere but I don't think what you have brought here has caused me any nervousness. Au contrar mon ami, you seem to continue to exhibit the very same characteristics you attempt to level as insult in your flames. This is an interesting phenomenon and should be useful for analyzing communications of people who exhibit the same disregard for civil (let alone valid) discussion as yourself.

Do you feel personally threatened by the content of this thread?

Mr Chips babbled: “don't know if the DOE is presenting misinformation or not but that is where you should have leveled your first accusation rather than grossly misinterpret their own words to suit your beliefs, at least twice now.“

I did not misinterpreted DOE’s statement at all. They said that with wind energy there is the potential to produce one and half times more electricity in just 6% of USA territory. As the United States area is 9,363,124 km2, they claim this area is 561,787 km2 - and I have just demonstrated you that they would need 1,235,741,738,880,000 km2 for accomplishing this. If that's not misinformation, then what is?

All they said was this gross exaggeration:
<dir>Wind Energy Resource Potencial
Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States.</dir>And then goes into talking they are developing the maps of wind potential with higher resolution, as if this would help develop wind turbine efficiency.<dir>Because techniques of wind resource assessment have improved greatly in recent years, work began in 2000 to update the U.S. wind atlas. The work will produce regional-scale maps of the wind resource with resolution down to one square kilometer. The new atlas will take advantage of modern techniques for mapping. It will also incorporate new meteorological, geographical, and terrain data. The program's advanced mapping of the wind resource is another important element necessary for expanding wind-generating capacity in the United States.</dir>When I say “they always refer to installed capacity”, I am referring to wind energy proponents. That was implied in the general discussion. But you go and start looking for the hair in the soup in order to dismiss my posts.

Do you really think that after the beating I am giving you I can feel threatened by the content of this thread? Why don’t you give up and go warm your blob of frozen yoghourt?

By the way: you didn’t point where (both) my lies are. Try again, and with your florid, elaborate and most times unintelligible writing you can come up with another of your hallucinations. If you fail to do it, you will show yourself as the liar.

Edufer:

Those are good news. The bad news is the DOE's study implies that the one and half times current US electrical power use would be met if 100% US territory is covered with "wind farms". Americans would have to move elsewhere!

That is one lie. If you think that data from some other sites will prove that you did not lie here, I say you are compounding your subterfuge rather than seeking clarification. Where exactly does the DOE imply 94% differently from what they say? You should go find their efficiency factors, their data, to categorically state that they are implying something that appears to be about 180 degrees opposed to what they claim.

Edufer:

And when they refer to wind power generation they will ALWAYS state “installed capacity” or "potential output", not real constant output.

When you state that something is "ALWAYS" the case, all it takes is one to prove you wrong and in this case the site under discussion proves you false. This is a second lie perhaps even more blatant and obvious than the first.

You are giving me a beating here? I think the DOE and a top Belgium think tank have already rendered your carrying on as quite insane.

Are the numerous grammar and spelling errors you seem to be showing with greater frequency here a sign of your confidence?

Edufer, you are not a man of integrity. Rave on, flame on, spin on, be that way.

My SOHO company just received it's largest one time revenue since start up. I'm going to go celebrate with the family.

Yogurt? If you had a case here, you should be able to think of some real criticism rather than just adding to the lies with a nonlitteral obvious one. When will you stop lying? I'm not holding my breath.

Dear Chippy: I am excused for making some mistakes in my English grammar or syntax, as my native language is not English, so implying that my mistakes are a sign of me getting nervous is ludicrous. I would like to see how you fare in a Spanish, French, Portuguese, or Italian discussion forums. I guess you are as proficient on those languages as well.

BTW, Je ne suis pas votre amie, parce que mes amies sont intelligentes. Je les avais choisi.

My statement: “Those are good news. The bad news is the DOE's study implies that the one and half times current US electrical power use would be met if 100% US territory is covered with "wind farms". Americans would have to move elsewhere!” is NOT a lie, but an opinion I have backed up with information and calculations that are up to you to refute. You haven’t done anything of the sort.

You are doing your usual spinning now, and have not pointed to where my lies are. Until you specifically point my lies, then it’s you who remains a liar. Your anonymous Belgian think thank has proved nothing (as we don’t know what they have proved), and the DOE page is just garbage. When you go to their pages on maps of “wind potential areas” you’ll find there are many links to maps giving a “404 Error”. Ask Senator Edward Kennedy and his Cape Code neighbors what they think about the “off-shore wind farms” some lunatics plan to install there. And his is a promoter of wind Power - but NIMOB!

So you are in the wind power business. And you present yourself as a non biased person? Your blob of frozen yoghourt is getting colder by the minute. Anyhow, have a nice party celebrating you company’s success. I have nothing against people earning honest money. May we know the amount of subsidies you get from taxpayer’s money for making your company compete with conventional electricity generation?

Chippy: In a prior post you said: ”I worry some about the future for my kids and grand-kids and really, for any kids anywhere…”, and that makes you a LIAR.It seems you worry "some" but not enough. You have defended DDT’s ban, the insecticide that could stop the death of a child every 30 seconds in malarious countries. If you "really worried" for children’s future you would be crusading for a return of DDT.

So we have caught you lying!

Mr. Chips: just forget the calculations I have made in my previous post. This one is based on technical data available to all. In the website of Vestas Wind Systems, the largest Danish wind turbine manufacturer (http://www.vestas.com/), and perhaps the world’s largest, we find the following data:<dir> Vestas receives large order for V90
turbines to the German market
“Vestas Wind Systems A/S has received an order for 31 units of the V90-2.0 MW wind turbines via its 100% owned German subsidiary, Vestas Deutschland GmbH. The order has been placed by WKN Windkraft Nord AG, located in Husum, and has a value for Vestas of approximately 70 mEUR.”</dir> This means 70 million Euros. It also means that each turbine costs 2.58 million Euros. (about $91 million US dollars)
<dir>Then, in the pages about such turbine we find:
http://www.vestas.com/produkter/v80/v80_UK.html

Vestas V80-2.0 MW
Rotor
Diameter: 80 m
Swept area: 5,027 m2</dir>
As average turbine output is about 30% of “rated” or “installed” power, the 2.0 mWh turbine gives 600 kWh of usable power (0,6 mWh)

For getting 3,799,944,000 mWh (year 2000 US production) output to the grid of usable electricity we need the following number of 2.0 mWh turbines:

<dir>0,6 mWh ---------------- 1 turbine
3,799,944,000 mWh ------ X

3,799,994,000 x 1 / 0.6 = 6,333,323,330 turbines (6,3 billion turbines)</dir>
The cost at 2.58 million Euros for each turbine = 1,633,997,419,914,000 Euros (or $4,248,393,291,776,400 US dollars, or 4.248 Trillion dollars)

One turbine covers 5,000 m2 (swept area)

On wind farms, turbines are most often spaced at intervals of 5 - 15 times the blade diameter. This is necessary to avoid turbulence from one turbine affecting the wind flow at others. If we take the middle number (10 times the diameter) the distances between turbines must be 10 x 40 meters = 400 meters, this means that each turbine has a footstep area of 400x400 = 160,000 m2, grossly 15 hectares (1 ha = 10,000 m2).

As 1 km2 = 1,000,000 m2, the number of turbines allowed by km2 is 6,25 turbines.<dir>6.25 turbines in 1 km2 will provide: 6.25 x 0,6 mWh = 3.75 mWh.

3.75 mWh ------------ 1 km2
3,799,944,000 mWh ---- X

3,799,944,000 mWh will be supplied by: 3,790,994,000 mWh / 3.75 mWh = 1,010,931,733.33 km2

US area = 9,363,124 km2
1,010,931,733.33 km2 km2 = about 107.96 times US territory</dir>
For getting one and a half times more electricity as claimed by DOE, the area must be multiplied by 1.5: 1,010,931,733.33 x 1.5 = 1,516,397,600 km2

The world’s total area = 983,552,857 km2

Then we would need a little less than two Earths for fulfilling DOE’s claim.

So much for the practical feasibility of wind energy!

And you dare to say I am a liar. What about your friends at DOE?

Here's a question, to the both of you. Answer it wisely. What do you want me to do about this? Huh? Honestly.

Tristan, I am through with this topic. That was my last post, as there is not much to say after that. I won't be posting anything else.

I do not make money from wind power. To claim that I am biased because I do is a falsehood. You can not back up that claim. You assumed what you wanted to support your crusade for nuclear power but it was, alass, another lie.

If you look at the menu above at that DOE site, http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html you can find some of the references DOE used to formulate their claim.

A pdf document from the site names some research that led to their claim. http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/Outlook2004.pdf . Here is an excerpt:

"Tapping only a fraction of America's vast wind resources would easily yield much of the new power that the country will need in the years ahead: in order to generate 15% of America's electricity (twice what hydropower generates today) only 0.6% of the land of the lower 48 states would have to be developed with wind power plants, according to a study by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. department of Energy. Within that area, as little as 5% of the land would be taken up by equipment and access roads, and most existing land use, such as farming and ranching, would continue as it is now."

They also refer to a Standford study. So now what Edufer? Must you extend your claim of lying to beyond the DOE to the Pacific Northwest laboratory and Standford?

Edufer, leave your foregone conclusion about DDT out of this thread. I shared a study that suggested the amount of kids who would die from the harm to developing and young kids from DDT exposure would offset those saved by its use in the home without consideration of the deaths that would result from well documented increase in cancers from exposures at early age. I also shared what appears to be a more efficient, requiring less expensive means and less toxic substance as well as demonstrating less development of resistant mosquitos than DDT, basically volatizing a small amount of pyrethrin, much less than the DDT required for the same effect. In short there is what appears to be quite valid research that suggests as far as concern for children goes, that your crusade to bring the wider use of DDT into the world will harm more than it helps. LEAVE YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAN WHAT IS IN THIS THREAD OUT OF HERE. The only reason why you brought it up is as an attempt to attack my character.

Moderator Tristan, I have placed a post in the SF Open Government area.