Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German nuclear controversy) | 97 comments (97 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Hah (4.00 / 5)

If you take my most recent project, with 5MW turbines running at (conservatively, I don't want to give real numbers) 40%, that's ten times fewer turbines already - and much less than the current number of turbines currently erected in Germany alone.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 04:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah (none / 1)

The size and number of turbines is irrelevant: bigger turbines have to be spaced further apart, so no gain in average power output per sq km of wind farm. Onshore wind farms have average output of about 2 MW/sq km, so to replace a 1.5 GW nuclear plant (occupying about 1 sq km) with wind farms you need about 750 sq km of land without trees or buildings. This doesn't allow for the extra generating capacity and pumped storage in mountain reservoirs that you'd require to maintain baseload on calm days.

by paulm on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 09:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah (none / 0)

750 Km^2 is a circle of about 15km radius.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 09:43:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah (none / 1)

ok, but germany needs at least 150 GW of carbon-neutral electricity to replace fossil fuels (including transport and heating without fossil fuels). doing that with wind requires 75,000 sq km of land without trees or buildings - something like 22 percent of germany's land surface. And there's not much scope for offshore wind: look at a map and see how much offshore water is less than 30 m deep.

by paulm on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah (none / 0)

Alternatively, you need to put 22% of Germany's trees or buildings within 15 Km of a nuclear reactor.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah (none / 1)

Or you can have a few sites with 5-10 reactors per site.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 01:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can we please stop using that silly land argument? (4.00 / 2)

Yes you'd 'need' that kind of land, but it's not like that land is unusable for anything else - you can still farm it, have roads, facilities, etc...

As to offshore, you'd be surprised by how much "scope" there is, even with such depth limitation. And 30m is only a limit right now at current power prices and in the face of current subsidy regimes for coal, gas et al.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 14th, 2007 at 10:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German nuclear controversy) | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Gaza Onslaught: Xmas Cancelled

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Recent Diaries

Gaza Genocide Biden Confronted by America's Past

Gaza Onslaught: Xmas Cancelled

McCarthyism and Genocide of Palestinians

VDL Hard Lessons Human Rights Law

Boris Johnson 'Bamboozled' by Scientific Data

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Occasional Series