Skip to main content

Blighting the Landscape with Turbines

From Twitterer Emily Gosden of the British newspaper The Telegraph:

Decc [Department of Energy and Climate Change] deleted this graphic comparing nukes/wind/solar "because of sensitivities". Says "not inaccurate". Hmm.

This is a post about it by Telegraph news blogger Will Heaven:

It turns out that the Renewable Energy Association called it "unhelpful" in a press release, pleading that "as Ed Davey stressed… it is not an either/or choice".

And here’s the infographic:

infographic

It basically shows the land mass taken to generate a similar amount of energy. Well, it really isn’t helpful to the renewable folks, is it?. Wind farms and solar arrays can eat up a lot of space.

Context really matters: if land mass is the key issue, nuclear energy wins. Nuclear energy wins on capacity, too, the potential generated output. Nuclear energy the realizes most of its capacity, wind and solar do not. This infographic doesn’t reflect that.

Imagine that this infographic were about water use instead of land use. Hinkley Point C and the wind farm would change places (let’s leave solar aside) and Hinkley could look far less attractive, a virtual river leech compared to those dry-as-bone turbines.  NEI has a good paper about water use, but that’s really beside the point.

This is not an issue with infographics, which can be really handy for communicating a lot of data in a friendly way. NEI has some nice infographics that make do without tacit editorializing. So let’s allow the Renewable Association its concern.

And that concern is not without cause:

Michael Fallon, the Conservative energy minister, said that nuclear power stations will ultimately prove a cheaper and less controversial alternative.

He told The Daily Telegraph: "This is the first in a wave of new nuclear plants to replace the ageing fleet that Labour did nothing to tackle.

"Without new nuclear local people would face many thousands more wind farms blighting our landscape. By contrast, nuclear power is popular in areas that have existing stations and will deliver significant jobs and investment."

We can be thrilled about Hinkley Point C without calling wind farms a blight. Land mass usage is important, but there are a lot of issues to consider – many of them still favor nuclear energy, but the government view does seem a bit lop sided. I agree with Ed Davey: it’s not either/or.

Comments

Bas said…
Nuclear uses more land per GW than:
- Solar on the roof (as in Germany). That uses no land at all!
- Big wind turbines. An 8MW wind turbine has only a ~160m2 footprint. The land between the turbines is used for farming, etc.
That is far less than the land nuclear Power Plants use! With nuclear the land used by uranium mines should also be counted!
SteveK9 said…
Talked to someone from Germany at a Bed and Breakfast in Toronto last week. His comment on wind turbines: 'These hideous things are everywhere you look'.
Anonymous said…
In my state we have a big wind farm that took over pasture land and the land is unusable between turbine towers. It is too "broken up" in profile for efficient farming (drainage is bad, the tractors can't swerve around the towers very well, combines can't maneuver between them, etc.). It can't be used for livestock because the animals sense the infrasound from the propellers and it makes them sick.
Bill said…
"Imagine that this infographic were about water use instead of land use. Hinkley Point C and the wind farm would change places (let’s leave solar aside) and Hinkley could look far less attractive, a virtual river leech compared to those dry-as-bone turbines."
All three of them would look tiny, since Hinkley is on the coast, and doesn't use river water for cooling.

The inaccuracy in the graphic: "terrawatt".
Oh, and the use of "homes" as a unit of power.
Mitch said…
Can't electric-energize multi-family houses and factories and buildings merely with solar cells on the roof -- especially in winter. Isn't happening anywhere, even China. Just hate-nuke pie in the sky wishfulness.
Anonymous said…
"- Solar on the roof (as in Germany). That uses no land at all!"

Also, no power at all (at night)! Very little power on cloudy days! Those things get bird crap and dirt and snow on them, you gotta go up and clean them off. That means your risk of falling is higher! One of the leading causes of accidental deaths is falls in the home. Backup power means burning more natural gas or biomass or coal. That means more carbon in the atmosphere! That means more acidification of the oceans! That could mean the end of life on this planet!!
trag said…
It is, in fact, an either/or proposition.

Money squandered on expensive, unreliable wind, is money that could have been spent on affordable, reliable nuclear.

While it is theoretically possible to have both, the reality of economics says that money spent on one is unavailable for the other.

Also, it has been well established that the unreliability of wind and solar is a detriment to reliable generating sources, because of foolish laws that give priority to unreliable generation on the grid.

Finally, money wasted on wind and/or solar costs the consumer more money. Every single utility which has subscribed to wind has seen a disproportionate increase in their electricity rates to consumers. There is a $.0076/KWHr charge on my bill for transmission lines for wind. Wind is maybe 10% of Texas electricity, yet that charge is for every kilowatt-hour used. That means that the actual cost of wind transmission lines is $.076 per KWHr of wind generated electricity. That is more than half the national average of the total cost for electricity, and that's just for the transmission lines.

Wind is a disaster for the consumer. Anyone who cares about people and their well-being, would oppose wasting our money on wind energy.

But keep on pushing that wind Mark. Really, why aren't you over at NREL instead of here?
Ross S. said…
Trag,

Thanks for your post, completely agree.

The other problem with wind is allows the uninformed to believe that something positive is being done, when in fact it is not.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…