Friday, 16 December 2016

Wind Power - Vastly Superior to Nuclear Power In Resource Use: Metal X19.2 Concrete X9.6

This goes a long way to explaining why the cost of Wind Power Farms, per MWh delivered, is so much greater than a Nuclear Power Plant !

Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant is rated at 3.2 GW, has a 90% Capacity Factor and a Design Life of 60 years.
It will deliver 1,513.7 TWh of 24/7 electricity.

UK Wind Turbine Operate at a Capacity Factor of 30.4%

"...The design life of a good quality modern wind turbine is 20 years. Depending on how windy and turbulent the site is, the turbine could last for 25 years or even longer, though as with anything mechanical, the maintenance costs will increase as it gets older...."

At a Capacity Factor of 30.4% and an 'Operational Phase' of 25 years, to deliver 1,513.7 TWh of intermittent electricity, the UK would need a Wind Turbine Total Operational Capacity of 22,736.422 MW.

Metals Use, Hinkley Point C: 141,806 tonne.
Metals Use UK Wind Power: 2,723,823 tonne [X19.2].

Concrete Use, Hinkley Point C: 1,022,490 tonne.
Concrete Use UK Wind Power: 9,844,871 tonne [X9.6].

A lot of people have fought oppression for the right to have wind turbines, but John Cleese gets right to the heart of the matter at 1:34 on this:


  1. And this is the remarkably inefficient LWR technology that has by experimental proof (not merely calculated) been shown to be 24 to 1000 times better, depending upon whether you count just the enriched fuel, or the quantity of what today is scheduled to be wasted.
    A fast neutron reactor, the IFR, which oddly enough the writers of the BBC series "MI-5" knew about in one episode, survived in 2 April, 1986 exactly the condition, except it was a deliberate test, that three weeks later destroyed the infamous Chernobyl reactor E
    BR-2, the Experimental Breeder Reactor model 2, was _deprived_ of its coolant pumping power, and as designed the rise in temperature shut the reactor down quite harmlessly. It was "walk away safe". Eight years later, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, in response to the SIerra Club and others that should know better, abolished funding for the program. That experimental reactor or a copy of it could have save the reactors at Fukushima, which unlike Chernobyl, which actually killed some people, killed nobody.
    Unless you count the poison gases from the substitute fossil fuels.
    For a design based upon the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment that Nixon cancelled. see

    1. Maybe you'd be interested in this:

      And you could become a member of this Group and maybe write to your MP or the PM to get a decision on PRISM:

  2. Note that both MSR and IFR are in fact designs that renew the otherwise scarce but enormously energy0dense resource that is _fissile_ isotopes.

  3. Please note that this is the EPR which is known to be the most resource intensive nuclear power plant ever. The AP1000 uses about 1/3 the resources/GW capacity, IIRC.

    1. As soon as the derisory comments on AP1000s and ABWRs start appearing in the UK media, I'll do the same exercise for those. Thanks for the interest.

  4. As for the expense of nuclear, it is quite clearly the product of a campaign of fear that serves chiefly the interest of the deadly poison emitting fossil carbon trade. I used to ride a bicycle to work, seven miles away. If there were a motor vehicle safety regulator one half as draconian as the NRC that demands radiation emissions As Low As Reasonably Achievable (regardless of cost), bicycle riding would be almost entirely safe, because there'd be almost nobody could afford an automobile. But I quit and went Metro, when a motorist ran a red light and hit my front wheel.