Nukes vs. Wind Again

I'd note there's a serious difference in reactions to a utility scale turbine that has gone into over-speed and self-destructed and that of say TMI or Chernobyl.  You don't have to go that far to be out of harms way with a turbine that's fixing to blow.  And the pieces are a lot easier to clean up.  You don't need a hazmat suit to do the cleanup.  Or billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of  "Chernobyl necklaces".

Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is Not the Right Alternative Energy Source - Dallas Morning News - 26 Feb 08

"Renewable energy sources are quite sufficient to provide ample, reliable electricity. For instance, Texas has greater wind energy potential than its present electricity generation from all sources; it is greater also than the output from all U.S. nuclear power plants combined. And it has barely captured a whisper of its potential.  Wind energy is competitive with or more economical than nuclear energy – about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour in good areas. A recent independent assessment by the Keystone Center, which included industry representatives, estimated nuclear costs at 8 to 11 cents.

Intermittency is not a significant issue until very high levels of penetration. For instance, a 2006 study prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission found that an increase of just over 2 percent in operating reserves would be sufficient to underpin a 25 percent renewable energy standard supplied by wind.

Meanwhile, Solar energy is somewhat more expensive today, but costs are coming down rapidly. Last December, Nanosolar produced the first solar panels costing less than a dollar a watt at its factory in Silicon Valley.

In January, MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which is owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, dropped plans to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho, on the grounds that it could not provide reasonably priced energy to its customers."

Nukes vs. Wind Again

I'd note there's a serious difference in reactions to a utility scale turbine that has gone into over-speed and self-destructed and that of say TMI or Chernobyl.  You don't have to go that far to be out of harms way with a turbine that's fixing to blow.  And the pieces are a lot easier to clean up.  You don't need a hazmat suit to do the cleanup.  Or billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of  "Chernobyl necklaces".

Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is Not the Right Alternative Energy Source - Dallas Morning News - 26 Feb 08

"Renewable energy sources are quite sufficient to provide ample, reliable electricity. For instance, Texas has greater wind energy potential than its present electricity generation from all sources; it is greater also than the output from all U.S. nuclear power plants combined. And it has barely captured a whisper of its potential.  Wind energy is competitive with or more economical than nuclear energy – about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour in good areas. A recent independent assessment by the Keystone Center, which included industry representatives, estimated nuclear costs at 8 to 11 cents.

Intermittency is not a significant issue until very high levels of penetration. For instance, a 2006 study prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission found that an increase of just over 2 percent in operating reserves would be sufficient to underpin a 25 percent renewable energy standard supplied by wind.

Meanwhile, Solar energy is somewhat more expensive today, but costs are coming down rapidly. Last December, Nanosolar produced the first solar panels costing less than a dollar a watt at its factory in Silicon Valley.

In January, MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which is owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, dropped plans to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho, on the grounds that it could not provide reasonably priced energy to its customers."

Americans Like New Nukes Better than French

Maybe that should tell us something?

Germans, Spaniards Reluctant to Nuclear Power - Angus-Reid - 26 Feb 08

"The majority of people in Germany and Spain are against developing new nuclear power plants in their countries, according to a poll by Harris Interactive published in the Financial Times. 68 per cent of respondents in Spain—and 64 per cent in Germany—reject building new reactors.  Support for further nuclear power development is highest in Italy at 58 per cent, followed by the United States with 52 per cent, France with 49 per cent, and Britain with 45 per cent."

Americans Like New Nukes Better than French

Maybe that should tell us something?

Germans, Spaniards Reluctant to Nuclear Power - Angus-Reid - 26 Feb 08

"The majority of people in Germany and Spain are against developing new nuclear power plants in their countries, according to a poll by Harris Interactive published in the Financial Times. 68 per cent of respondents in Spain—and 64 per cent in Germany—reject building new reactors.  Support for further nuclear power development is highest in Italy at 58 per cent, followed by the United States with 52 per cent, France with 49 per cent, and Britain with 45 per cent."