WTF Climate Change News

Spirits Rising

Voice of Reason/Quite Blunt
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
328
Location
Akron, OH
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
08/24/2014
SLU Posts
1476
Is that so? Then act like it.

Your last few responses here and anywhere the impending Climate Change issues are brought up give quite a different impression.
 

Aribeth Zelin

Faeryfox
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
2,492
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
03-11-2011
SLU Posts
9410
So excuse me, but I've got more than good enough reason to believe that nuclear power is not our saviour as some conceive it to be. It's not even an important stepping stone into a better future, because we do need clean energy at massive scale right now and the enormous construction times of available nuclear reactor designs makes this impossible for nuclear power.
For the record, I was saying you were wrong that the only governments using nuclear are the ones wanting weapons. And before I was citing that oil use is going down; because of those 'shiny new toys' you are so dismissive of. And seriously, its like talking to my mom, who won't ever believe anything I say because 'I'm not an expert' and 'get stuff off the internet' but then will tell me the exact same thing because someone on her TV is getting the same information off the internet.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Cindy Claveau

Cindy Claveau

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
668
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44402
Of course we are not on the same page: your main argument and Cindy' as well is "oh, there are all these new shiny toys being available soon, so cool, hooray!" You are just believing the pro nuclear power propaganda which has been circulating around a lot since climate change has become a more pressing topic, without asking questions or looking back at the origins of these designs and experiences with former research reactors done in the past, if there are such things.
At no time have I ever said or accepted any such attitude. So you're only sticking YOUR words in MY mouth. Stop it -- Or not, and we can go verbal fisticuffs over your propensity for exaggeration and misrepresentation.

So excuse me, but I've got more than good enough reason to believe that nuclear power is not our saviour as some conceive it to be. It's not even an important stepping stone into a better future, because we do need clean energy at massive scale right now and the enormous construction times of available nuclear reactor designs makes this impossible for nuclear power.
If we are truly to survive the coming climatic apocalypse (and that's exactly what it is), we must be open to every possible solution. I'm sorry, but that has to include nuclear. It's not ideal. I've never claimed it was. It presents other challenges we must overcome (like disposal of used fuel). But it remains an existing technology IN HAND that we are learning to master (like "don't build on fault lines, Japan") and which is much less harmful to the ecosystem in the short term than 200+ years of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Nothing demands that we start and stop with nuclear - but it exists, it works, and we'd be idiots to stick with just one technology.

It's also only a first step. Other methods of energy production will come, and then we may be able to ignore nuclear. But frankly, right now it's one of the last arrows in our depleted energy quiver.

Get it, now? Please let me know where I've ever claimed that "there are all these new shiny toys being available soon, so cool, hooray" - that's your misrepresentation, not mine. I'm open to any technology that can delay, stop or reverse our rape of the environment. To play YOUR game, I'm guessing you're happy just relying on local rooftop gardens and recycling. That's as ridiculous as what you're accusing me of believing. Recycling helps, but it doesn't go big enough to reverse global climate change.
 
Last edited:

Cindy Claveau

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
668
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44402
My own take is that our attempts to grapple with the climate emergency are happening slowly, too slowly compared to the rate of change in our climate. Adopting green technology is a good change to make for the short-term improvements it offers, which is more than enough reason to continue with the effort and with all sense of urgency. But I don't believe what we're doing will make that much difference, if any, in the long-term consequences.
:qft:

Nothing we do (or even plan to do) will take carbon out of the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to change the warming already in effect. Nothing will put the WAIS back together again or re-freeze the permafrost that is emitting methane as it melts. We're steadily on course for 2-3 degrees of warming, possibly more, and that will be catastrophic enough to disrupt civilization as we know it. That outcome is pretty much baked in already.

And we're completely emotionally unprepared for what is to come, as Texas so aptly demonstrated just this past week. Aside from making only anemic efforts to lower carbon emissions, we're making even weaker efforts to prepare for the challenges of the next centuries. Our way of life is slipping very rapidly (in historic & geological terms) out of our grasp.
Texas is Texas' fault, mostly. They knew 10 years ago that their power grid was at risk and did nothing because "regulation is evil" and their leaders are blinded right wing partisans who struggle even accepting climate change in the first place.

Regulation, while not strictly a technology, is still an essential component of countering climate change.

Where you and I agree is that the crisis is accelerating much faster than we ever expected - catastrophically so. Right now, the most we can expect out of our efforts is that the sea levels will go ahead and rise, millions of species will go extinct and mankind will be faced with generations (rather than years) of trying to deal with it. We've also begun to see more devastating weather events, wildfires, etc. That doesn't mean "everybody dies". It means a lot of people will die needlessly and our primitive, partisan political system will actually work against our own survival.

I keep saying that the way things are will not be the way things still are in the future. But if you project our current path linearly out into the future, everybody on earth will be less healthy, poorer, and more prone to unrest and wars (as humans migrate between regions). If our species actually is doomed, it's still going to taken generations for extinctions to actually happen. We either devote more national treasure to solutions or the future is going to be harder and more perilous than we can even imagine, today.

I'm worried as hell about the climate, don't get me wrong. But living in Kansas, I have more to fear from the Yellowstone Caldera than I do from sea level rise. We can do something about one of those problems, but not the other.
 

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
2,927
SL Rez
2002
If we are truly to survive the coming climatic apocalypse (and that's exactly what it is), we must be open to every possible solution. I'm sorry, but that has to include nuclear. It's not ideal. I've never claimed it was. It presents other challenges we must overcome (like disposal of used fuel). But it remains an existing technology IN HAND that we are learning to master and which is much less harmful to the ecosystem in the short term than 200+ years of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Nothing demands that we start and stop with nuclear - but it exists, it works, and we'd be idiots to stick with just one technology.
I recognize that nuclear power has at first glance its appeal, because it's mostly weather independent, reliable and during power generation produces no CO2. But nuclear power plants take much too long time right now to build to have the impact we need. They are not even making sense economically, because they'll mostly produce debt for their investors. Aside that the nuclear waste is a nightmare beyond belief.

You don't have to take my word on this about the economic feasability of building new nuclear power plants, I'll give you this financial report by the rating agency Moody's from 2009 instead. Moody's is a neutral actor in that area, purely analyzing the economical feasability about it.

Since most of the commercial nuclear power plants back then reached its original lifetime, Moody's analyzed if it makes sense to replace them with new ones and how the credit rating probably would be for the erecting companies.

Their result was this:
We view new nuclear generation plans as a “bet the farm” endeavor for most companies, due to the size of the investment and length of time needed to build a nuclear power facility. While we continue to view operating nuclear units positively, we increasingly sense that none of the issuers actively pursuing these endeavors have taken any material actions to strengthen their balance sheets. As a result, it has become increasingly likely that the pursuit of new nuclear power projects will lead to some near-term rating actions or outlook changes.

Which simply means: highest risk investion, don't do this, go away, unless you're really dumb or filthy rich. Which is exactly the reason why private investments in nuclear power don't happen much these days.

A modern wind turbine at land has around 6 MW. A typical nuclear power plant 1000 MW. From building the fundament up to putting the machine house on top the average building time of a wind turbine is around one week. The mean time of building a nuclear power plant is 8 years right now.

166 of such wind turbines are able to replace a nuclear power plant if weather conditions are good enough. Even if the same working crew would build only one wind turbine after the other they would be done within 3 years and 3 months. And the investment is much lower, not even in the billion range, compared to a nuclear power plant.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Disagree
Reactions: Caete

Cindy Claveau

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
668
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44402
I recognize that nuclear power has at first glance its appeal, because it's mostly weather independent, reliable and during power generation produces no CO2. But nuclear power plants take much too long time right now to build to have the impact we need. They are not even making sense economically, because they'll mostly produce debt for their investors. Aside that the nuclear waste is a nightmare beyond belief.
While I agree on the waste issue, maybe you didn't look at the link I provided on the Small Nuclear tech being initiated. We can build them smaller, faster, and more efficiently today than ever. Where I live, wind turbines cover the landscape (we're a very windy state) but so far (to my knowledge) it still doesn't rise to the level we need for alternate generation. Not the "world beater" we need, but right now even wind turbines are stop gap measures..
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Beebo Brink

Caete

Scientist Lady of Science
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,465
Location
20 Minutes into the future
SL Rez
2006
I recognize that nuclear power has at first glance its appeal, because it's mostly weather independent, reliable and during power generation produces no CO2. But nuclear power plants take much too long time right now to build to have the impact we need. They are not even making sense economically, because they'll mostly produce debt for their investors. Aside that the nuclear waste is a nightmare beyond belief.

You don't have to take my word on this about the economic feasability of building new nuclear power plants, I'll give you this financial report by the rating agency Moody's from 2009 instead. Moody's is a neutral actor in that area, purely analyzing the economical feasability about it.

Since most of the commercial nuclear power plants back then reached its original lifetime, Moody's analyzed if it makes sense to replace them with new ones and how the credit rating probably would be for the erecting companies.

Their result was this:
We view new nuclear generation plans as a “bet the farm” endeavor for most companies, due to the size of the investment and length of time needed to build a nuclear power facility. While we continue to view operating nuclear units positively, we increasingly sense that none of the issuers actively pursuing these endeavors have taken any material actions to strengthen their balance sheets. As a result, it has become increasingly likely that the pursuit of new nuclear power projects will lead to some near-term rating actions or outlook changes.

Which simply means: highest risk investion, don't do this, go away, unless you're really dumb or filthy rich. Which is exactly the reason why private investments in nuclear power don't happen much these days.

A modern wind turbine at land has around 6 MW. A typical nuclear power plant 1000 MW. From building the fundament up to putting the machine house on top the average building time of a wind turbine is around one week. The mean time of building a nuclear power plant is 8 years right now.

166 of such wind turbines are able to replace a nuclear power plant if weather conditions are good enough. Even if the same working crew would build only one wind turbine after the other they would be done within 3 years and 3 months. And the investment is much lower, not even in the billion range, compared to a nuclear power plant.
You are failing to take in account the infrastructure cost. Let us look at just the land amount used.
A 1000 MW nuclear plant takes up just over 1 square mile.
A 1000 MW solar facility requires up to 75 times the land.
A 1000 MW wind farm requires up to 360 times the land.

Wind and solar require optimal weather conditions to as productive. Not a windy day? Less power produced. Overcast? Same outcome.

I'm not sure what fantasy land you are pulling construction times from but it isn't reality.
It takes roughly 2 months to put up a turbine from scratch. The part that takes the longest to make is the foundations which require 28 days to set after being poured. Then after building the foundations, it can take 1-2 days to install the entire turbine, then few more days to test and commission it and then you need to make sure this is connected to the electrical grid.
Also you need 2-5 years to build an ENTIRE farm! You need this time to get permits to build, usually you are building in rural areas so you need to build roads, you need to order the wind turbine and they need to manufacture and ship it. You sometimes also need to build an entire electrical substation to evacuate the power. Evacuate means that once the power is made, you get this to connect to the electrical grid.

Wind turbines cost 1.3 million each. Their lifespan is 20 years. On average, they run at 39% capacity. The break even point ie they pay for themselves is 22.38 years.

Nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology while solar PV capacity factors also vary based on location and technology, from 17 to 28 percent.

Based just on operating capacity, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land.

A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facility’s output, requiring between 45 and 75 square miles.

maths: How much does a wind turbine earn? When will it pay for itself? Let’s calculate profit and break-even points
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint
 

Ashiri

√(-1)
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
747
Location
RL: NZ
SL Rez
2007
SLU Posts
-1
The conversation would be so much better with attention to sources and biases in some of the numbers thrown about.
 

Ashiri

√(-1)
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
747
Location
RL: NZ
SL Rez
2007
SLU Posts
-1
There's a variety of Ignore options as well, threads or individuals.
But ignoring a particular set of posts within a thread? This is an interesting thread with interesting posts made by interesting people but...
I just want people to review the links and look for obvious inconsistencies common with biased positions. Always consider the source.
 

Sid

Searching for words
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,476
Location
Limburg, NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Yes
But ignoring a particular set of posts within a thread?
It's called a scroll wheel on the mouse.

This is an interesting thread with interesting posts made by interesting people but...
I just want people to review the links and look for obvious inconsistencies common with biased positions. Always consider the source.
You really can't expect academic discussions and a scientific approach on these forums, where every one checks and dubble checks every provided link and fact.

We have interesting discussions and point of views at times. No decision makers discuss here.
There is only the Internet to win here, no scholarships or academic titles.
 
Last edited:

Kamilah Hauptmann

A bit of a wanker
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,547
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2002
But ignoring a particular set of posts within a thread?
I would love this sort of feature but might take a lot of AI. So failing that, "Ignore this person in this thread". Or "Ignore the next X posts from this List_Of_Persons" while they fight it out.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Clara D.

Caete

Scientist Lady of Science
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,465
Location
20 Minutes into the future
SL Rez
2006
Wind Watch | The facts about wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms

What kind of platform is a wind turbine set in?

The steel tower is anchored in a platform of more than a thousand tons of concrete and steel rebar, 30 to 50 feet across and anywhere from 6 to 30 feet deep. Shafts are sometimes driven down farther to help anchor it. Mountain tops must be blasted to create a level area of at least 3 acres. The platform is critical to stabilizing the immense weight of the turbine assembly.
How much do wind turbines weigh?

In the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons — a total weight of 164 tons. The corresponding weights for the Vestas V90 are 75, 40, and 152, total 267 tons; and for the Gamesa G87 72, 42, and 220, total 334 tons.

How much area is required for a wind power facility?

The huge turbines require a correspondingly large area around them clear of trees and other turbines to maximize the effect of the wind and avoid interference. They should have 10 rotor diameters of clearance in the direction of the wind and 3 rotor diameters in every other direction. In a line of several turbines perpendicular to the wind (as on a mountain ridge), the GE 1.5-MW model would need at least 32 acres and the Vestas V90 78 acres for each tower. In an array that can take advantage of the wind from any direction, the GE needs 82 acres and the Vestas V90 111 acres per tower.
In practice, the area varies, averaging about 50 acres per megawatt of capacity. On mountain ridges, the turbines are generally squeezed in at about 10 MW per mile.
Can the area around a wind turbine continue to be used?

Only by putting oneself in danger. Besides the unpleasant noises and distracting motion, wind turbines are not safe. They are high-voltage electrical devices with large moving parts. It is estimated that for every 100 turbines, one blade will break off (see Larwood, 2005). In the winter, heavy sheets of ice can build up and then fall or be thrown off. Access to the land around wind turbines is usually restricted, even to the landowner.


Curing Concrete - How Long it Takes & How To Cure - The Concrete Network
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR CONCRETE TO CURE?

The entire curing period of concrete takes about a month, but your concrete will be ready for use sooner. Each project will vary slightly due to differences in the weather, concrete mix and placement and finishing techniques.

When waiting for concrete to dry, keep these timeframes in mind:

  • 24 to 48 hours - after inital set, forms can be removed and people can walk on the surface
  • 7 days - after partial curing, traffic from vehicles and equipment is okay
  • 28 days - at this point, the concrete should be fully cured
Solved! This is How Long It Takes Concrete to “Dry”
After 7 days from pouring the concrete, you can drive on a new driveway.
By the time a week has passed the concrete will have reached approximately 90 percent of its final strength, and it’s usually safe to drive on it. If you have a large size vehicle, however, such as a 1-ton pickup truck, it’s a good idea to wait a few days or even a week longer.
At 28 days, concrete reaches its full strength and hydration is complete.
Although the bulk of the hydration process takes place in the hours and days immediately after the pour, concrete needs 28 days to fully dry.

Because Bob Villa is the Jeff Rense of the construction world.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,219
SL Rez
2006

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,820
SLU Posts
9073
You are failing to take in account the infrastructure cost. Let us look at just the land amount used.
A 1000 MW nuclear plant takes up just over 1 square mile.
A 1000 MW solar facility requires up to 75 times the land.
A 1000 MW wind farm requires up to 360 times the land.

Wind turbines cost 1.3 million each. Their lifespan is 20 years. On average, they run at 39% capacity. The break even point ie they pay for themselves is 22.38 years.
I don't know where you get your data from, but the Topaz solar farm in California is 550 MW and 7.34 square miles, thus 13.35 sq mi = 1000 MW. Rooftop solar and agrisolar can share the land with other uses.

Wind farms can share land with other uses. They take up about 1% of the ground area. Typical numbers for modern turbines are 2.5 MW capacity and 120m blade diameter. Turbines are typically spaced 5 blade diameters apart so as not to "shadow" the next turbine downwind, and allow turbulent mixing to regenerate wind speed. Therefore they are 600 meters apart. 1% of the land area is 60x60 meter area or 3600 square meters. 400 x 2.5 MW turbines = 1000 MW, which requires 1.44 km^2 = 0.56 square miles. Offshore turbines require no land area.

Onshore turbines cost $1.3M per MW, or $3.25M per unit. 39% capacity is 3416 hours per year. Wholesale power is $50/MWh, so it produces $427,050 per year, and pays for itself in 7.6 years. Obviously if it took longer to pay back their cost than they last, nobody would build them, so that last point was wrong. But I wanted to run through the numbers. Given the errors in the first part of your comment, I assume the rest is just as wrong, and I encourage you to recheck your sources.



 

Caete

Scientist Lady of Science
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,465
Location
20 Minutes into the future
SL Rez
2006
Oh if only I had put links to my sources in my posts... oh wait I did. One is from 2015, the other from 2009. My main issue was your assertion that we can just toss up wind farms essentially overnight (one week) when it takes more than one week for the foundation to fully set. Now once it is set, I can see a well functioning team assembling on in a week, another week for testing and then it may be ready for production.

Would you be kind enough to link your source of one week build time info? Or better the one for your super hyper setting concrete?

Currently, wind turbines are spaced depending upon the diameter of the rotor; standard turbines have rotor diameters of around 300ft. Traditionally, wind turbines are 7 times this distance apart.
However, results from recent studies state that doubling the distance would prove the turbines to be much more cost-effective.
Wind Turbine Spacing: How Far Apart Should They Be? - Energy Follower from 2020

The general rule-of-thumb for wind farm spacing is that turbines are about 7 rotor diameters away from each other. So an 80-meter (262-foot) rotor would need to be 560 meters -- more than a third of a mile -- from adjacent turbines. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have proposed that twice as much spacing would increase overall efficiency.
How Much Land Is Needed for Wind Turbines? from 2018

Evidence is that the manufacturer-recommended separation distancesof7 to 8 rotor diameters for turbines in line with the prevailing wind and 5 rotor diameters for turbines abreast, still allows turbulent air exiting one turbine to retain significant turbulence when entering the next;so the manufacturers’ recommended spacings can be considered as an unfortunate compromiseand inadequate to contain noise.The most efficient turbine spacing, i.e., that which allows the turbines to economically extract the most energy from the wind, has been shown to be some 15 rotor diameters.
http://www.na-paw.org/Mitchell/Mitchell-Wind-Turbine-Separation-Distances.pdf 2015

To minimize the aerodynamic losses between turbines under prevailing wind conditions, the optimal streamwise spacing has been found to be 10–15D, where D is the turbine diameter (1416). Modern turbines are increasing in size, with offshore turbines now above 200 m in rotor diameter (17). The corresponding spacing of turbines multiple kilometers apart significantly increases the cost of transmission lines and land use (18). As a result, wind farm designers are left with a complex multiobjective optimization problem which typically results in operational turbine spacing of 6−10D (18). At this spacing, significant aerodynamic wake losses persist in modern wind farms when the flow is aligned with columns of turbines and the wind speed is below the rated value (13).
Wind farm power optimization through wake steering 2019

Researchers are still looking over the industry spacing standard of seven rotor diameters. The latest findings actually indicate that larger spaces between turbines are more efficient, reports Science Daily.

They suggest 15 rotor diameters between structures. This statement is based on the idea that horizontal winds aren’t the only ones playing a part in efficiency. Winds pulled down from higher altitudes are in their equations, which leads to a more complex scenario than realized before.
Spacing it Out: How Much Land is Required for Wind Turbines? 2019

Wind is a decent suplemental power to help lower the amount of more environmentally unfriendly sources but it is going to take a balance of all the types working together to make any noticable change.
 

Sid

Searching for words
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,476
Location
Limburg, NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Yes
Opinion from someone living only a few miles away from a wind turbine patch with 20+ turbines in Germany:
Wind turbines in larger clusters are totally visual pollution.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Innula Zenovka