Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Just an interesting site with some statistics on land used to produce the same amount of electricity.

Link

To figure the spacing between the turbines, multiply the rotor diameter of 77 meters by 3, which gives us 231 meters. Now, to figure the spacing between rows of wind turbines we multiply the rotor diameter of 77 meters by 5, which gives us 385 meters between rows. If we multiply the 231 meters by 385 meters, it will give us the total area required to site one of our 1.5-MW wind turbines. This comes out to 88,935 square meters, or 22 acres of land.

If we multiply the 22 acres by our 6,668 wind turbines, we get 146,696 acres, which is 229.21 square miles (about three times the size of the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area).

Compare that to the 4,000 acres required for the nuclear plants. And then consider, that the Comanche site can support two more units (the license is currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). That would double the power output achieved on the same 4,000 acres, and bring the ratio of land use efficiency of nuclear power, compared to windmills, to 73 to 1.

Again, a no-brainer...

Gil Dobie wrote:Just an interesting site with some statistics on land used to produce the same amount of electricity.

Link

To figure the spacing between the turbines, multiply the rotor diameter of 77 meters by 3, which gives us 231 meters. Now, to figure the spacing between rows of wind turbines we multiply the rotor diameter of 77 meters by 5, which gives us 385 meters between rows. If we multiply the 231 meters by 385 meters, it will give us the total area required to site one of our 1.5-MW wind turbines. This comes out to 88,935 square meters, or 22 acres of land.

If we multiply the 22 acres by our 6,668 wind turbines, we get 146,696 acres, which is 229.21 square miles (about three times the size of the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area).

Compare that to the 4,000 acres required for the nuclear plants. And then consider, that the Comanche site can support two more units (the license is currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). That would double the power output achieved on the same 4,000 acres, and bring the ratio of land use efficiency of nuclear power, compared to windmills, to 73 to 1.

Great figures...I was recently in Cheyene WY, which has a huge wind turbine farm south of town along the Colorado border...it really does take up lots of space...

But it's all about tradeoffs...

What can we do with all the waste developed by those wind turbines???
How do we react to a leak from a wind turbine???

I'm not anti-nuc...far from it, I think we need more...

But there are tradeoffs for each form of energy...which is why there is no one correct solution...

Do we use LOTS of unused space to put up wind turbines.... YES
Do we build more nuclear plants...YES

And I say screw the Kennedy's...let's build that proposed wind turbine farm off Nantucket Island...I don't care if it "ruins their view"...

Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power. That is the kind of stuff the "stimulus" should be working on, not paying for the Census.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power.

10 years from now, there may be a way to use 100 percent of the nuclear waste, and use up the stored waste. Nuclear Energy is strictly regulated, at least from my experience working for a power company a few years ago. A file in the wrong drawer cost them $50,000. France is 80% nuclear, so why can the USA be at least 50 percent.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power. That is the kind of stuff the "stimulus" should be working on, not paying for the Census.

And I'm in favor of that...even from FRANCE
(I kid, I don't care who has a good idea)

I'm just going to argue that wind has a place...nuclear has a place...no one energy is the be-all, end-all fix...

Gil Dobie wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power.

10 years from now, there may be a way to use 100 percent of the nuclear waste, and use up the stored waste. Nuclear Energy is strictly regulated, at least from my experience working for a power company a few years ago. A file in the wrong drawer cost them $50,000. France is 80% nuclear, so why can the USA be at least 50 percent.

Do you have a source or a link? Sounds like an interesting read.

Gil Dobie wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power.

10 years from now, there may be a way to use 100 percent of the nuclear waste, and use up the stored waste. Nuclear Energy is strictly regulated, at least from my experience working for a power company a few years ago. A file in the wrong drawer cost them $50,000. France is 80% nuclear, so why can the USA be at least 50 percent.

Current US design is also very safe. Everything that could go wrong DID go wrong at TMI, but no significant amount of radiation was released.

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Look at France Col. (as painful as that is to say). They are developing technology that uses nuclear balls instead of rods that prevent meltdowns. In addition, they're also developing ways to recycle the nuclear waste to use it as additional power. That is the kind of stuff the "stimulus" should be working on, not paying for the Census.

And I'm in favor of that...even from FRANCE
(I kid, I don't care who has a good idea)

I'm just going to argue that wind has a place...nuclear has a place...no one energy is the be-all, end-all fix...

It may have it's place unless we can make nuclear truly safe and use all of the waste. Then, it would be disadvantageous to use wind energy. Right now, I agree, all energies have a place.

Are we just trading foreign oil for foreign uranium?

hank scorpio wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
10 years from now, there may be a way to use 100 percent of the nuclear waste, and use up the stored waste. Nuclear Energy is strictly regulated, at least from my experience working for a power company a few years ago. A file in the wrong drawer cost them $50,000. France is 80% nuclear, so why can the USA be at least 50 percent.

Do you have a source or a link? Sounds like an interesting read.

Here's a quick one I found.

French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter. It was assumed that this high-level waste would be buried in underground geological storage and in the 80s French engineers began digging exploratory holes in France's rural regions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rench.html

To Hank's point - yes and no. The US has a lot of untapped uranium deposits. Using breeder reactors like France does will reduce the need for imports further.

And we can then get what we need from friendly countries, like Canada and Australia.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
Do you have a source or a link? Sounds like an interesting read.

Here's a quick one I found.

French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter. It was assumed that this high-level waste would be buried in underground geological storage and in the 80s French engineers began digging exploratory holes in France's rural regions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rench.html

From the next paragraph.

To the astonishment of France's technocrats, the populations in these regions were extremely unhappy. There were riots.

So there is the kicker. The energy is great, but nobody wants a toxix dump anywhere near their community. If Yuca Mountain isn't politically viable, I don't know what is.

By the way, I am not anti nuclear at all. I am just playing the devil's advocate.

hank scorpio wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Here's a quick one I found.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rench.html

From the next paragraph.

To the astonishment of France's technocrats, the populations in these regions were extremely unhappy. There were riots.

So there is the kicker. The energy is great, but nobody wants a toxix dump anywhere near their community. If Yuca Mountain isn't politically viable, I don't know what is.

True, but read the rest of that paragraph. Those people thought it was going to be a nuclear waste dump, but France plans for it to be storage. In other words, they will reuse that waste at a later time, which won over the critics.

The Japanese have developed a way to get uranium from seawater, using genetically engineered seaweed.

All seawater contains uranium - about 3 ppb, so there is litterally millions of tons of uranium just offshore of the United States.

Nuclear waste will still be an issue, but France is showing it can be reused. As technology advances, we will probably solve that problem, or at least reduce it drastically. I think the waste is the largest issue, for most people, not meltdowns. Maybe Mars would be a good place for nuclear waste It needs global warming to be terraformed.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Nuclear waste will still be an issue, but France is showing it can be reused. As technology advances, we will probably solve that problem, or at least reduce it drastically. I think the waste is the largest issue, for most people, not meltdowns. Maybe Mars would be a good place for nuclear waste It needs global warming to be terraformed.

"Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

Plus, the French psyche is very different from ours.

Yuca Mountain would be a deep geological repository not a "dump", poor choice of words on my part.

hank scorpio wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Nuclear waste will still be an issue, but France is showing it can be reused. As technology advances, we will probably solve that problem, or at least reduce it drastically. I think the waste is the largest issue, for most people, not meltdowns. Maybe Mars would be a good place for nuclear waste It needs global warming to be terraformed.

"Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

Plus, the French psyche is very different from ours.

Yuca Mountain would be a deep geological repository not a "dump", poor choice of words on my part.

Well, it's a catch 22. You can not have nuclear and not deal with the waste and try and develop enough wind and solar energy to make it available on a large scale and economical (unlikely anytime soon) before we ruin the earth per Al Gore and we all die. I think the time has to come to put all of them on the table and work on all of them.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:
"Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

Plus, the French psyche is very different from ours.

Yuca Mountain would be a deep geological repository not a "dump", poor choice of words on my part.

Well, it's a catch 22. You can not have nuclear and not deal with the waste and try and develop enough wind and solar energy to make it available on a large scale and economical (unlikely anytime soon) before we ruin the earth per Al Gore and we all die. I think the time has to come to put all of them on the table and work on all of them.