The recent troubles at the Vattenfall Kruemmel nuclear plant near Hamburg may prove a boon to green energy companies. One such company, Lichtblick, has seen 200 new customers per day since the power outage. The Kruemmel nuclear plant near Hamburg had been back up and running for less than two weeks after a two year shutdown when one of its transformers short circuited on July 4. There was a sudden drop in voltage then shopping centers and traffic lights in Germany's second largest city went dark. Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Failed transformers led to an automatic shutdown at the Kruemmel nuclear plant Vattenfall, the Swedish company running the Kreemmel plant said the short circuit and the hour-long blackout were simply an isolated incident. But energy users may see it otherwise, much to the delight of green energy companies, who say they've seen a dramatic jump in customers.
The Kruemmel nuclear plant near Hamburg had been back up and running for less than two weeks after a two year shutdown when one of its transformers short circuited on July 4. There was a sudden drop in voltage then shopping centers and traffic lights in Germany's second largest city went dark.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Failed transformers led to an automatic shutdown at the Kruemmel nuclear plant
Vattenfall, the Swedish company running the Kreemmel plant said the short circuit and the hour-long blackout were simply an isolated incident. But energy users may see it otherwise, much to the delight of green energy companies, who say they've seen a dramatic jump in customers.
This week, the Obama administration approved the sale of timber in a roadless national forest in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is a 17 million acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska, which is home to both endangered species and native Alaskan tribes. It is the largest temperate rain forest in the United States.
Country residents have been told that they must accept the building of "many thousands" of wind turbines as part of a new green energy strategy. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, announced yesterday that planning rules would be changed to make it easier for 6,000 onshore wind turbines to be built. Britain's "default position" would be to accept new onshore turbines, he said.The expansion in wind farms was included in the Government's Renewable Energy Strategy, which aims to cut energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce Britain's dependence on fossil fuels.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, announced yesterday that planning rules would be changed to make it easier for 6,000 onshore wind turbines to be built. Britain's "default position" would be to accept new onshore turbines, he said.
The expansion in wind farms was included in the Government's Renewable Energy Strategy, which aims to cut energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce Britain's dependence on fossil fuels.
Launching large industrial projects never works well without the support of the locals. The way Miliband (or the Telegraph?) frames it makes me think of Yucca Mountain. That is NOT the way to run things.
If you just explain the pros of accepting wind power parks or nuclear waste facilites, communities are bound to fight over who gets them. If you try to impose them on people in a top-down process people will fight them no matter the pros, as they should. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Though windparks hardly qualify as national sacrifice areas. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Though windparks hardly qualify as national sacrifice areas.
Would that your world of ceramic bubbles without risk for 10,000 years was as miniscule. (In other words, i don't want to hear about Sweden's unbelievably safe storage methods, unless you're willing to write a book about the entire supply chain)
Just because Burrough's insects masquerading as citizens clamor for something doesn't corelate to value. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Personally I'd much rather live next to the spent fuel storage than a wind farm (which is exactly what's going to happen as they're building that site in my backyard but won't build any windfarms) but I understand perfectly well if other people feel the opposite way. The important thing is listening to the locals so no community have unwanted things imposed upon them. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And, I suppose that you will try to tell us that 100% of the copper in the windings will be recycled. Ha! 100%???? As if anything is ever 100%.
While you have us swimming in solvents and copper dust, I'll have you know that nuclear materials are natural products, some even on the periodic table fer chissake. Radiation is everywhere. The sun's energy is radiation. You don't want to put that down in some tunnel for 10 billion years, do you? Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
somebody will always object, one way or another. Anything the Govt wants done has to be bulldozed through. So this story in the Telegraph reflects exactly how any project happens while describing the paper's attitude towards it. keep to the Fen Causeway
Can't you just bring all the local communities, companies, politicians, labour unions and NGO's together, sit down and sing kumbayah? Consensus, my friends, consensus. ;) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If we wanted consensus, we'd be in Europe.
SO MUCH for Labour's fearsome media machine. On the morning of July 15th Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, was giving press interviews in London trumpeting his government's plans to cut Britain's greenhouse-gas emissions and rebuild its economy around clean energy. The very next day the Vestas wind-turbine plant on the Isle of Wight, the biggest in Britain, completed its final batch of turbine blades and shut up shop, with the loss of over 600 jobs.
The fact that this blade shop's inferior blades caused no end of warranty costs for Vestas seems to have escaped the Economist's normally top shelf auditors. I won't go into the details, suffice to say that one of Vestas' turbine models which they acquired by buying Micon is now being phased out. hence, inferior factory closes. Would that England realized that onshore windpower is task no. 1 could have changed the situation.
Mr Miliband had the guts to admit that building nuclear reactors and wind turbines would mean energy bills rising, an unpopular consequence that other politicians have avoided mentioning. Officials guess that Britain will have to spend £324 billion-404 billion ($532 billion-663 billion) by 2050 to scrub out carbon.
I haven't been able yet to identify who or what "officials" make the estimate, but i have been able to identify that Thee Economyst's normally excellent auditors have once again neglected to mention the entire range of externalites not accounted for in the UK system. Despite these externalities being what's known as "hard costs."
and then Thee Eek onomist turns about face and says the support isn't enough.
Yet the money looks inadequate to the ambition. The biggest new dollop of cash is £405m for developing eco-industries, including £120m for offshore wind turbines, £60m for wave and tidal energy, and £15m for nuclear research. That pales next to the hundreds of billions the government mustered to bail out the finance industry it now hopes to trim. Gordon Edge, chief economist at the British Wind Energy Association, argues that raw financial firepower is less important than directing it wisely, but he concedes that Britain's government has been less pushy than some. In fact, say analysts at HSBC, a bank, its Keynesian splurge is one of the world's least green. Britain has allocated 7% of total spending to environmental causes, compared with 12% in America and 83% in South Korea.
I can assure you, i'm not schizophrenic, and neither am i. Both of us are wondering however, how every nation, country, city-state, principality, city and village is going to be No.1 in renewables, as they are all claiming.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just get on with the work of building renewables into a transparent part of our civilization? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Wouldn't it be simpler to just get on with the work of building renewables into a transparent part of our civilization?
All of the costings dumped on the public about how much more green enrgy will be than staying with coal and gas have nuclear builds and CCS research and installation rolled into them, when windfarms and more hydro are much much cheaper. You never hear about how much nuclear and CCS will cost.
So the govt is just being plainly dishonest in order to destroy the idea of green energy to enable CCS and nuclear to become the default. In the UK green vs nuclear is a zero sum game where nuclear holds all the aces and lobbying advantages. keep to the Fen Causeway
what's been happening is people proudly proclaiming that they won't "kick the can down the road" for someone else to deal with, and then doing exactly that. when we hear about 'green jobs that can't be outsourced', what images come to mind? people across the country building, installing, maintaining windmills. whole new industries. industrial parks being built or re-tooled to support all of this manufacturing and maintenance. retro-fitting for environmental soundness, and the like. this is what people thought they were voting to achieve. instead what we've been given is a silly line that feeding astronomical sums of $$ directly to corrupt banks will 'fix everything eventually', and a bald-faced lie that 'no one could have seen this coming'. where are our windmills? where are the new factories? where is there even any kind of talk about creating these things within our government? why are 500,000 people losing their jobs per month, and people are trying to sit around and talk about what god-damn good news it is??? this is nuts! why isn't the government hiring people in large numbers to put into practice this new, more sustainable lifestyle?
what's been happening is people proudly proclaiming that they won't "kick the can down the road" for someone else to deal with, and then doing exactly that. when we hear about 'green jobs that can't be outsourced', what images come to mind? people across the country building, installing, maintaining windmills. whole new industries. industrial parks being built or re-tooled to support all of this manufacturing and maintenance. retro-fitting for environmental soundness, and the like.
this is what people thought they were voting to achieve. instead what we've been given is a silly line that feeding astronomical sums of $$ directly to corrupt banks will 'fix everything eventually', and a bald-faced lie that 'no one could have seen this coming'.
where are our windmills? where are the new factories? where is there even any kind of talk about creating these things within our government? why are 500,000 people losing their jobs per month, and people are trying to sit around and talk about what god-damn good news it is??? this is nuts! why isn't the government hiring people in large numbers to put into practice this new, more sustainable lifestyle?
why indeed... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
