Europe May Have to Think Twice About Wind Power

In Europe, wind power is running in to more objections:

It can cost between 54 and 102 dollars to save emission of a tonne of carbon dioxide by using wind energy, says a report released last week by a German government energy agency and two other independent groups.

Germany, which has the world's largest number of wind farms, would have to spend 1.4 billion dollars to link wind farms to the electricity grid to meet its declared aim of producing 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015, the report says. That would cost the average German home an additional 21 dollars a year . . .

The Country Guardian, a British group that has opposed wind farms for years claims the new German report validates their objections. "We have been saying for years that wind energy costs three times as much as conventional energy, and damages the landscape," Ann West from Country Guardian told IPS. "Wind farms are such horrible blots on the landscape."

Elfam, the largest utilities company in Denmark found in a study that wind farms had not reduced carbon dioxide emissions, she said. The Germany energy giant Eon, she said, had found that wind energy needs to be backed up by conventional energy.

"Wind energy is not just more expensive but it leads to more pollution," West claimed. She cited a report by the Royal Academy of Engineers in Britain to suggest that a conventional power station produces more carbon dioxide when it is turned down to make room for energy from wind farms, and also when it has to "ramp up" when wind energy is insufficient.

Click here to read about the Royal Academy's report. I think it's important to note that we don't have anything against renewables. It's just that when you take an honest look at future electricity demand, and add in concerns about environment, it's going to take more than just renewables to fill the gap.

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog