You're talking ONLY of the subsidies ? what about the normal cost of nuclear ? can it compete with the 7 we have here for wind? and do you have any indication on how much the insurance of nuclear would cost if they would have to pay for them ?
oh, and after the expected liftime of the mill, you keep it in use until the blades fall off, after which you can replace the nacelle and blades for one third the cost of a new one (which means probably around 3 cents per kwh)
from the article, translated : "If nuclear power plant operator would have to insure itself against an atomic accident with billion-damage, the calculation would shift clearly to favour of the renewable ones." besides, 'what wind could ever be,' that's a bit premature don't you think : wind power is getting cheaper by the day. anyways: wind is already at 5-7 cent per kwh (the article is already 3 years old, which means the price has come down quite a bit since then). http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html 'Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in ma' that's 5 + 1.5 cents in subsidy, that's 6.5 cents tops without the subsidy.
'Over the past 25 years, the entire federal subsidy for wind power has been no greater than the subsidy bestowed on nukes each year from the fifties through the eighties.'
"recent events" you're talking as if that 1 incident makes that massive amount of data incorrect? (I wonder how much money and time has been spent already by the oil- and coal- industry trying to undermine the data, and the fact they come up with so little is hilarious)
camp B + Jarl Ahlbeck: If that's the case, why has CO2 levels risen this fast and this much ? camp C : please read the IPCC report, that is backed by most climatologists, which predicts a warmer climate.
1/without the greenhouse effect the earth would be 18-19 degrees C cooler 2/CO2 is being emitted at a huge rate (oil+coal+...) 3/explain how this does NOT lead to a higher greenhouse effect?
Windturbines have become 20 times more powerful the last 3 decades, and cost per Kwh has come down incredibly, without the massive input they have got as nuclear power has in the years '40-'70. anyways : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid "indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present."
Windpower is a relatively new technology, so it deserves some time to catch up. Or would you like to retroactively add the cost of the initial nuclear power plants ? Even so, the number indicate NOTHING about the free insurance they receive. http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes
bird strikes, is that ALL you can come up with ??? a well placed turbine has only a few hits per year (a lot less than a mile of highway). ugly? well, let's tear down 99% of all buildings then.
Thats all nice when you have no life. But I have a wife and a little girl and live in an area where it goes down to -20 for 3 months. Its easy to say reduce your energy consumption, but the reality is quite different.
You can go very far with insulation. there are houses in existance that even don't need heating (see : passive housing) even at very low temperatures
Slashdot Mirror
how about this then ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
the result of this would be : no subsidies for anyone = NO NUCLEAR POWER - PERIOD.
your claims have been addressed, and seriously debunked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
I believe you have never given 1 reference to actual insurance costs. I'm still waiting.
they can't generate when the wind isn't blowing.
Right. but: There is ALWAYS wind.
insurance for wind ? For when a turbine explodes and the government has to clean up the mess; while spilling radiation all over europe, leading to thousands of deaths ?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
You're talking ONLY of the subsidies ? what about the normal cost of nuclear ? can it compete with the 7 we have here for wind? and do you have any indication on how much the insurance of nuclear would cost if they would have to pay for them ?
oh, and after the expected liftime of the mill, you keep it in use until the blades fall off, after which you can replace the nacelle and blades for one third the cost of a new one (which means probably around 3 cents per kwh)
from the article, translated :
"If nuclear power plant operator would have to insure itself against an atomic accident with billion-damage, the calculation would shift clearly to favour of the renewable ones."
besides, 'what wind could ever be,' that's a bit premature don't you think : wind power is getting cheaper by the day. anyways: wind is already at 5-7 cent per kwh (the article is already 3 years old, which means the price has come down quite a bit since then).
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html
'Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in ma' that's 5 + 1.5 cents in subsidy, that's 6.5 cents tops without the subsidy.
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_thread/thread/6c672bb8efcfa7c2
'Over the past 25 years, the entire federal subsidy for wind power has been no greater than the subsidy bestowed on nukes each year from the fifties through the eighties.'
http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons
"recent events" you're talking as if that 1 incident makes that massive amount of data incorrect? (I wonder how much money and time has been spent already by the oil- and coal- industry trying to undermine the data, and the fact they come up with so little is hilarious)
well, you can lookup the sources for the article on wikipedia, they point to scientific papers.
camp B + Jarl Ahlbeck: If that's the case, why has CO2 levels risen this fast and this much ?
camp C : please read the IPCC report, that is backed by most climatologists, which predicts a warmer climate.
nuclear has a lot more hidden subsidies. 4-8 cent per KwH in the form of insurance is one of them.
How does H20 in the atmosphere absorb CO2 ?
1/without the greenhouse effect the earth would be 18-19 degrees C cooler
2/CO2 is being emitted at a huge rate (oil+coal+...)
3/explain how this does NOT lead to a higher greenhouse effect?
Windturbines have become 20 times more powerful the last 3 decades, and cost per Kwh has come down incredibly, without the massive input they have got as nuclear power has in the years '40-'70.
anyways :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
"indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present."
ONE nuclear power plant can not deliver base load.
I'm not stupid. but i can tell you that it casts a shadow of up to 20 km.
Yeah, they had electricity in the 9th century.
Windpower is a relatively new technology, so it deserves some time to catch up. Or would you like to retroactively add the cost of the initial nuclear power plants ? Even so, the number indicate NOTHING about the free insurance they receive.
http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons
Their costs for wind energy are ridiculously high. In the long run wind power WILL be cheaper.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes
bird strikes, is that ALL you can come up with ??? a well placed turbine has only a few hits per year (a lot less than a mile of highway).
ugly? well, let's tear down 99% of all buildings then.
I for one would prefer to see a single nuclear plant on the horizon
I guess you don't live near a nuclear power plant. The exhaust plume of a cooling tower is gigantic.
I for one would
I choose windpower.
Thats all nice when you have no life.
But I have a wife and a little girl and live in an area where it goes down to -20 for 3 months.
Its easy to say reduce your energy consumption, but the reality is quite different.
You can go very far with insulation. there are houses in existance that even don't need heating (see : passive housing) even at very low temperatures
reater than 95% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.
how? and at what cost ? sources ?