Pros And Cons Of Windpower

[cs]

Following is a link to a report on cnn.com about some of the negative aspects of living adjacent to or within visual range of wind turbines.

"Wind power brings prosperity, anger"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflif ... index.html

It might be good to pass this article along to local residents which some members of the HG/Pg community have been in contact with.

Despite the current, seemingly positive, outlook (i.e., "There are currently no pending or anticipated prospect of windmills on "our" ridge. [District Ranger Jim Smalls] said the ridge with WV Border is a possibility but the prospect is still somewhat marginal."), we can't be too complacent. It might not be an "emergency" situation now, but it will be, if and when construction begins suddenly, without warning. Best not to let the guard down too much.

The root problem certainly won't be solved anytime soon. (i.e., proponents of wind farm development have P.C. momentum despite the fact that the actual energy output is relatively low and the benefit vs. impact case for developing such wind farms in pristine forest, skylines, and farmland is tenuous at best. Profiteering "clean energy" developers will continue to build these wind farms as long as the federal government continues to compel energy companies to purchase or produce X number of mega-watts from wind farms every year.)

To those wannabe greenies that say, "but the xyz wind farm can provide power for 20,000 homes," I say, why not compromise and cut back on the development of 20,000 of the hundreds of thousands of new homes being built on our agricultural land every year? Aside: Has anyone heard of some of the cases in Virginia where conservation easements could not be granted to right-thinking landowners because pro stupid-growth (pro developer) local government had other plans for the land (development, roads, infrastructure, etc.)? Not a pretty picture.

[bustedwing2]

Support nuclear power,lots of it,the one thing the French have the right idea about.The sub I was on had a window in the floor where you could look down into the core while it was running,it's safe,we have hundreds running in naval ships without problems.4 decades with no reactor problems.Lots of reactors no need for wind gens.RichB

[davidtheamazing1]

and solar photovoltaic are bad for us glider pilots because like a body of water, it absorbs energy and hence produces no thermal lift

[RedBaron]

The root problem certainly won't be solved anytime soon.

Wind turbines are a good thing. People like you are the root problem.

Support nuclear power,lots of it,the one thing the French have the right idea about.

The one in Sweden almost blew up not a long time ago. Nuclear power plants are like hang gliding. They're all about managing the risks. They're not 100% safe. Lot's of those in the hands of a country whose power outages kick 100 million people back into stone age is like declaring war on Russia. And uranium is not a renewable energy resource, by the way.

[cs]

Wind energy is definitely a good thing.

However, the implementation of wind farms in certain locations, without regard for local impact or aesthetic concerns, is a problem which results from a lack of foresight, protocol, and program management over these privatized initiatives. Is this news to anyone?

There should be windfarms and there should be guidelines and oversight which permit introduction into certain environments and not into others. Shall we really throw farms up helter-skelter anywhere possible? How many of our pristine skylines, forests, etc. are we willing to give up in support of our "quest" for overdevelopment and overpopulation?

Just clarifying my previous post, for the sake of at least one apparent wannabe greenie who misunderstood. My sincere apologies to all for posting my original reply and this followup, containing general opinion, into this GW forest thread which unfortunately happens to be in the flight topics forum.

[mcelrah]

Craig is being thoughtful and balanced in his remarks.

Now, back to the bomb-throwing (pun intended): Janni, uranium is too renewable - plutonium gets made when uranium is cooked in a reactor - big problem for non-proliferation - but since we and the Russians are sitting on a huge stockpile of the nasty stuff, one solution might be to build reactors designed to use plutonium as fuel - burn it up - or heat it up so much that terrorists would get incinerated if they tried to mess with it.

Mark, feel free to move this to the general discussion area. Haven't been there in a while - is Marco there?

- Hugh

[CraginS]

Hugh said,
[quote]Craig is being thoughtful and balanced in his remarks.[/quote]

Sorry, but cs is not craig shelton.

I've been trying to figure out who cs is, but (s)he has only posted twice, and the profile has zero ID info.


cs, would you mind tellling us who you are, please?

Thanks!

Cragin (craig)

[RedBaron]

Janni, uranium is too renewable - plutonium gets made when uranium is cooked in a reactor

Uranium is not renewable. Once it's gone it's gone. The fact that you get some small fraction of U235 made from burning plutonium does not make it renewable since plutonium itself is extremely rare and must be produced from uranium.

However, the implementation of wind farms in certain locations, without regard for local impact or aesthetic concerns, is a problem which results from a lack of foresight, protocol, and program management over these privatized initiatives. Is this news to anyone?

Whoever calls this a thoughtful and balanced statement must also like Obama's speeches very much. Aesthetic concerns? You must be delusional!!! Local impact? What local impact do wind turbines have exactly and how does that impact compare to exploding energy costs, dependence on foreign oil and gas which turns the West into slaves to those foreign countries? Okay, some farmers will make a boatload of money selling their lands. Migratory birds may be affected. I guess that soon there will be Greenpeace demanding all off-shore wind turbine parks be relocated because they mess with the sonar of migratory whales. So let's just keep them in Texas or, even better, Mexico.
To bring this back into the context of HG. $4 a gallon hurts this Sport more than a dozen wind turbines on the WS ridge. There's pilots out there who think $20 per tow is expensive. It will soon be $30. Yes we all know, wind turbines are a good thing, but please not in our town and not on our ridge. Can it get more hypocritical than this?

[mcelrah]

I don't think Craig Sutherland minds being "outed" - he's a power and sailplane pilot who started hang-glider training and retains interest in it. He's been cross-posting relevant items between sailplane and foot-launch soaring fora, such as pictures of Tom Ceunen on PG exchanging photography with a classic WOODEN Slingsby Capstan sailplane near Luray couple weeks ago.

Nope, Janni, fast breeder reactors produce MORE fissile material than they consume. And I plead "guilty as charged" - put the windmills anywhere you want - except anywhere I don't like 'em. There is no free lunch on alternative power - plug in hybrids have a greater carbon footprint than straight gasoline-powered if the electricity is generated by coal burning.

- Hugh

[huddlec]

Got my latest electric bill. It's been averaging about $25 a month since I got the new refrigerator (the old one died) and put florescent bulbs in all but the dimmer switch activated light (which I tried to replace, but the bozo who wired this place made the neutral hot).

For all of you who are worried about wind power on 'our' mountains, consider what you can do to reduce your contribution to the problem (which is the unnecessary use of energy).

Christy

[RedBaron]

The time required for a breeder reactor to produce enough material to fuel a second reactor is called its doubling time, and present design plans target about ten years as a doubling time. A reactor could use the heat of the reaction to produce energy for 10 years, and at the end of that time have enough fuel to fuel another reactor for 10 years.

Hugh, I admit I'm not an expert on Fast Breeder Reactors. Are you saying one reactor will fuel downstream reactors for an indefinite amount of time?

[mcelrah]

I'm no expert either. But I work for Department of Energy - will ask around.

I do know that weapons grade highly enriched uranium is in the 90% range (93%?) of the fissile isotope, whereas what you need for a reactor is in the single digits of percent. There is an excellent program under the Nunn-Lugar bill which buys HEU from the Russians, blends it down and sells it for reactor fuel. The idea I mentioned earlier was to do something similar with plutonium - they actually blend it with uranium into "MOX/mixed oxide". But heretofore, U.S. and conventional arms control doctrine has been that plutonium is just bad and should be buried in the ground. The Russians were resistant to the idea of giving up something they had produced at great expense - stored energy - without getting something back. Given the current Georgia contretemps, it seems unlikely we will be cooperating with the Russians...

Also, the U.S. does not reprocess "spent" (more accurately "poisoned") reactor fuel - only the French do that. So, we are a once-through uranium cycle, which is not sustainable given current prices for uranium ore.

- Hugh

[brianvh]

http://www.3rd1000.com/nuclear/nuke101g.htm

I found this provides a much clearer explanation than wikipedia.

[RedBaron]

Thanks for the link Brian. Seems to me that while they're far superior in terms of efficiency they, too, will eventually use up the initial fissionable material making it a great yet non-renewable energy source. I'm not opposed to nuclear power plants, they are clean and safe. People need to be aware, though, that if one of those fails the consequences will be dire and put half this country under a canopy of radioactive fallout. We also need to ask ourselves whether we feel good about dumping the massive responsibility of managing tons of radioactive waste with a half-life of tens of thousands of years on future generations when we have the technology to utilize the endless supply of clean and safe energy that comes from the sun, winds and waters. Isn't it obvious that we have the responsibility and moral obligation to minimize the use of nuclear power? Pointing out local impacts and aesthetic concerns that come with wind turbines is all good and well. But take a good look at the alternatives and ask yourself what our children and grand children would want us to do. I grew up with wind turbines on every hilltop as far as you could see. We were used to them and they never bothered us.

[dbodner]

Whether nuclear power is, in theory, renewable is a little beside the point. I don't think there's any possibility of fuel being unavailable during the 50-year life span of the next round of power plants. Maybe there'll be no more fuel after that, but, we should be looking at nuclear as a transition to more benign technologies.

A few wind turbines on isolated hill tops isn't going to help much. However, blanketing the entire state of North Dakota probably would. A crazy scheme like that (or like the solar scheme someone else highlighted a few months ago) would take decades. In the meantime, we need to develop transition energy sources. Nuclear is one. I'd even throw in offshore drilling, if it were part of a real serious, long-term plan.

[Matthew]

Di-Lithium Crystals.

Matthew
PS And anti-matter.

[Gene]

I am using all the energy I can. I am scared that the World is coming to the end in 2012. So, I am abusing my energy needs now. Thermostat on 60 degrees right now, hot water heater on max, everything plugged in and running. Oh yeah, I keep my tire pressure low so that I get a nice smooth ride and don't get stuck in the sand or snow. Crank up the reactors and start drilling in ANWAR.
My two cents. LOL
Gene

[brianvh]

Dave pretty much nailed it. Non-breeder reactors that use bromated water as both the coolant and the moderator are nearly incapable of meltdown because heating and cooling depend on the same thing. This is the Calvert Cliffs technology.

Unfortunately the breeder reactor doesn't have this failsafe. If that could be worked out, i'd say full steam ahead. People are gonna scream at me for saying this, but nuclear material is refined from what is all around us. After using it, if you could just disperse it again we are no worse off than before. Not sure how to do it, but theoretically the only problem with nuclear waste is concentration, not its existence. Storing it all together somewhere seems like a dumb idea to me. If we could evaporate it to the atomic (or molecular oxidized) level and disperse it slowly by ships crossing the ocean, we'd likely never notice it.

[RedBaron]

Not sure that's true, Brian.

Nuclear fuel cycle

Main articles: Nuclear fuel cycle and Spent nuclear fuel

[edit] Front end

Waste from the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is usually alpha emitting waste from the extraction of uranium. It often contains radium and its decay products.

Uranium dioxide (UO2) concentrate from mining is not very radioactive - only a thousand or so times as radioactive as the granite used in buildings. It is refined from yellowcake (U3O8), then converted to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6). As a gas, it undergoes enrichment to increase the U-235 content from 0.7% to about 4.4% (LEU). It is then turned into a hard ceramic oxide (UO2) for assembly as reactor fuel elements.

The main by-product of enrichment is depleted uranium (DU), principally the U-238 isotope, with a U-235 content of ~0.3%. It is stored, either as UF6 or as U3O8. Some is used in applications where its extremely high density makes it valuable, such as the keels of yachts, and anti-tank shells.[5] It is also used (with recycled plutonium) for making mixed oxide fuel (MOX) and to dilute highly enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles which is now being redirected to become reactor fuel. This dilution, also called downblending, means that any nation or group that acquired the finished fuel would have to repeat the (very expensive and complex) enrichment process before assembling a weapon.

[edit] Back end

The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and actinides that emit alpha particles, such as uranium-234, neptunium-237, plutonium-238 and americium-241, and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as californium (Cf). These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors.

It is important to distinguish the processing of uranium to make fuel from the reprocessing of used fuel. Used fuel contains the highly radioactive products of fission (see high level waste below). Many of these are neutron absorbers, called neutron poisons in this context. These eventually build up to a level where they absorb so many neutrons that the chain reaction stops, even with the control rods completely removed. At that point the fuel has to be replaced in the reactor with fresh fuel, even though there is still a substantial quantity of uranium-235 and plutonium present. In the United States, this used fuel is stored, while in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Japan, the fuel is reprocessed to remove the fission products, and the fuel can then be re-used. This reprocessing involves handling highly radioactive materials, and the fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of high-level waste as are the chemicals used in the process.

Looks like what goes in is much less radioactive than what comes out.

[mcelrah]

Yup, everything is radioactive: one of the things my lab does is build detectors for nukes in shipping containers. Problem: false alarms from...loads of bananas - they contain potassium, which has a radioactive isotope. Gotta go back and train the detector algorithm to look for *point sources* of radioactivity... - Hugh

P.S. And yup again: cooking uranium or plutonium in a reactor "heats" it up such that only industrialized nations, and not terrorists, can handle it. Reprocessing would give us (the U.S.) this largely renewable supply of uranium, but also the highly radioactive neutron poisons, which have to be buried for centuries in a deep hole. (You *can* use them as non-chain-reacting heat elements - this is what the old Soviets did for high energy power sources in some of their satellites.) Then there is all the non-fuel hardware like pipes and cladding, which is at least somewhat radioactive and has to be (guess what) buried in a deep hole or else submerged in water when it gets too "embrittled" by the neutron flux.

[brianvh]

Janni: read it carefully.

"Waste from the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is usually alpha emitting waste from the extraction of uranium. It often contains radium and its decay products."

Reworded: uranium mixed with other things shows up in a truck. The uranium is concentrated, with other less radioactive things removed. The things removed are considered the front end waste. The front end waste obviously can be redispersed with no harm to the environment.

"The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and actinides that emit alpha particles, such as uranium-234, neptunium-237, plutonium-238 and americium-241, and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as californium (Cf). These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors....the fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of high-level waste"

So after use, the concentrated uranium and fission by-products come out the back end as depleted fuel rods. Are these spent fuel rods more radioactive then the ones that went in? I assert they are not in sum more radioactive, just more concentrated then the stuff in the truck that pulled up, so that's why they are termed highly radioactive. Since these by-products came from radioactive uranium in the first place, I assert they are no more radioactive than the original. If the original truckload of stuff can be stuffed back where it came from with no complaints, then the front end waste could be mixed with the spent fuel rods in a highly dispersed way and stuffed back where it came from as well.

The key is to reduce the concentration on an atomic level. Not ground up into dust (too concentrated): reduced to the molecular level and mixed back in or otherwise dispersed. The reduction to the atomic or molecular level (chemically combined to something else) is likely quite a trick or people would be doing it. The manhattan project combined uranium with flourine to make a gas...I doubt we'd want to go that route!

I could be wrong, and the way to settle it is to measure the total decay energy from the incoming versus the outgoing rods. I think the final decay energy would be less then the initial decay energy, especially when dispersed so that sputtering chain reactions are impossible. Possibly the spent fuel rods are more radioactive, just not amenable to chain reaction.

[mcelrah]

Brian,

Aren't the fuel rods that come out of the reactor more energetic because they have been revved up in the neutron flux for some time? - Hugh

[brianvh]

I wouldn't say revved up, but changed. Radioactivity is not a conserved quantity, which is why Janni may be correct on saying what comes out is more radioactive than what goes in. If you split an atom and any of the parts ends up heavier than Iron, chances are it will be radioactive, which is just nature's way of getting the protons and neutrons in an atomic nuclei back in balance.

I'm arguing that you are going from already radioactive uranium to other radioactive material. But they could have more energetic decays, or faster decays (shorter halflife), either of which would make me say we shouldn't mix them back in. I guess I could look the things up and do a calculation of energy emitted during natural decay versus that emitted by the by-products, but I just don't feel like it. I'm sure somebody's done it. Simple question: which is more dangerous, spent or unspent fuel rods?

[brianvh]

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/arti ... ?a_id=1108

The spent rods can be held while the most radioactive products halflife themselves away (a few weeks?), then deal with the rest.

[mcelrah]

I strongly suspect that used fuel rods are more radioactive, that the radioactivity of the fission products is greater than that of non-reacting uranium or plutonium. I am told you can hold a subcritical mass of plutonium in your hand (not sure this is a good idea) - but it needs ventilation, because it gets warm... Story is that one of the Sandia scientists had a plutonium "pit" (hemisphere) on his desk, another he was using as a doorstop. Knocked the paperweight off his desk, it rolled in contact with the doorstop, he knew he had to separate them, died a week later. I don't think anyone is so cavalier with stuff like that anymore... - Hugh