+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable Energy Technology  (Read 1285 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Could Offshore Wind Replace Nuclear Power?  




SNIPPET:

August 16, 2016 by Bloomberg

by Jessica Shankleman (Bloomberg) Britain could scrap the 18 billion-pound ($23 billion) nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point and get the same amount of electricity from offshore wind turbines for roughly the same investment

That’s the assessment of Bloomberg New Energy Finance following Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to review whether to proceed with the first new atomic plant in more than three decades.

For the same capital costs, the U.K. could install about 830 new turbines at sea, which would generate 25 terawatt hours a year the same amount of power the Hinkley reactors would produce, according to the London-based researcher.


Aglebert NOTE: Not to mention the FACT that sea side wind turbines in Japan were unscathed by the giant tsunami when all the nuclear reactors were put out of commission or melted down to pollute every living thing around them.

Not to mention the FACT that we-the-people have to bear the cost (i.e. nuclear welfare queen subsidy THEFT) of insuring nuclear power plants because, although private insurers will gladly insure offshore wind turbines, they will NOT insure nuclear power plants.

Not to mention the FACT that Nuclear power plant capital costs CONTINUE after being built BECAUSE they need more fuel rods from polluting mining and manufacturing operations.

Not to mention the FACT that Wind turbine maintenance is much less hazardous, while maintenance  costs are much lower than that of a nuclear power plant. Yes, you need more people (i.e. MORE JOBS!  ;D) to maintain a lot of wind turbines. But the elimination of the COSTS to we-the-people of insuring nuclear power plants, providing sweetheart financing and guaranteed energy price rates more than offsets the cost to employ all these people.


Wind power is a win win for biosphere AND the economy. Nuclear power is the exact opposite.


Full article including energy cost bold faced lies (i. e. nuclear power is 'cheaper' than wind power), doubletalk (i. e. claiming that the wind 'only blows half the time' in order to assert that wind power generating capacity needs to be DOUBLE - wind power is reliable over 80% of the time over the UK ocean.), and whining  about renewable 'schemes' by a spokesman for the EDF nuke pukes

http://gcaptain.com/could-offshore-wind-replace-nuclear-power/


Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm