+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 13745
Total Topics: 270
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable Energy Technology  (Read 968 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30790
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Could Offshore Wind Replace Nuclear Power?  


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

Thatís the assessment of Bloomberg New Energy Finance following Prime Minister Theresa Mayís 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 ó 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


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12


+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:49:12 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:41:55 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:32:03 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 07:58:16 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 07:42:51 pm

October 22, 2019, 07:02:12 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 06:15:15 pm

This startup is building a massive indoor farm in a Rust Belt steel town by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 04:58:20 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 04:39:00 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 04:06:57 pm