Slashdot Mirror

Excuse me, I never claimed to be an expert, and worded my posts carefully not to make that impression. Now about your expertise: personal observations often have an anecdotal character. Utilities count in 100s of MW if not GW; the 16MW provided by an Avon engine is small change. Maybe browse this lineup instead. For example. And yes, do run on stuff other than kerosene.

I really don't think this is the end of the world. And the best part- for us nuclear fans- is that a big electricity crunch would be just the stimulus needed to build new plants. I know it takes a while to get them online but the transition to electric vehicles won't happen overnight, either.

Ah but nuclear power plants can't be built as fast as wind turbines can. Doing a quite search the Salem Nuclear Power Plant was the largest electrical generation nuclear powerplant. It has 2 reactors, one capable of generating 1,174 MW and the other 1,130 MW for a total of 2,304 MW. However if you erect 20 5 megawatt wind turbines a month in 2 years you'll add 2,400 MW of capacity. Could a nuclear powerplant be built and brought online in 2 years?

Backed by French government loans Areva, also owned by the French government, started building the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland in 2005. Originally it was scheduled to be built in 2009 as "the world's largest and safest nuclear plant". Today, it's not scheduled to be finished until 2012 at the earliest, and it's 2 to 3 billion dollars over budget. Fact is is cost overruns for nuclear powerplants considerably add to their costs. As the freemarket institute CATO reprint of a "Forbes" magazine article says, the nuclear power industry is "Hooked on Subsidies". Notice where it says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

Well, I mentioned several issues

Maybe in other posts but not in the postI replied to.

Till the wind farm is up and providing economical electricity, that snub stands.

Wind turbines should be able to be erected faster that EVs are manufactured. Erect twenty 5 megawatt wind turbines a month and you add more than 1 gigawatts of capacity a year. The hardest part isn't erecting the wind turbines, it's adding capability to the grid. However because failures in the grid cost the US $80 to $188 billion a year. So the grid needs to be upgraded, and made smart, anyways.

lets start small and doable

I agree, however solar and wind is doable and can start slowly. For instance as I say above erect 20 wind turbines a month.

As it stands today, I can purchase several cheap (junk) trimmers for the price of a feeble battery string trimmer.

I bought a Craftsman plug in electric trimmer from Sears last year for about $50. I would have preferred one with a battery pack but they cost more as you say. What I find ironic was that I also bought a battery powered drill for $50 as well.

A ICE trimmer cost less than the replacement battery of an electric.

Batteries for the drill cost about $10.

Falcon

wind (which takes 10's of thousands of acres of turbines to equal a medium-sized coal plant)

Citation needed!

Even if so, that land can still be used for other purposes. Minnesota corn farmers farm wind on the same land. This generates a second source of income for those farmers.

The only form I haven't heard environmentalists condemn is geothermal

I've never heard a nuclear power proponent turn down a subsidy. They are "Hooked On Subsidies".

Falcon

Bluewater Wind has a deal to sell energy from a proposed wind farm off the Delaware cost, but it needs $800 million investment to move forward. Bluewater's project will "nameplate" at ~600 MW with average delivery of ~200 MW.

Meanwhile Delsea Energy has filed initial permit applications with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the US Army Corps of Engineers to build a utility scale wind farm project offshore New Jersey. Delsea will nameplate at 300 to 400 MWe with average delivery of ~100 MW.

Both of these projects are looking at 3 MW to 3.6 MW turbines (~200 for Bluewater Delaware, ~100 for Delsea New Jersey) that have 300 foot towers.