Group items tagged

Recent allegations that a dash for wind would cause a big increase in fuel poverty crumble when you do the numbers, says Oliver Tickell. Nuclear is the real worry "Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty" - shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK.

"If we take seriously the protection of human health, we have to phase out coal- and nuclear-powered electricity. Coal kills hundreds of Ontarians and triggers more than 100,000 illnesses (e.g., asthma attacks) annually. It is also the most climate-destructive fuel around, emitting twice as much carbon as natural gas does. Whether the issue is respiratory disease or global warming, coal is a catastrophe. But nuclear is extremely unhealthy as well. A scientific review by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment found all functioning reactors release radioactive materials on a routine basis. A 2008 German government study showed children (younger than five) living within five kilometres of a nuclear plant are at elevated risk for leukemia. And Scientific American recently reported nukes harm the climate: "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered.""

"Germany can generate 25 percent of its electricity from wind by 2020 if the government sticks to its plan of phasing out nuclear power, the nation's wind industry lobby group said. Wind turbines onshore may reach 45,000 megawatts of installed power capacity, while offshore equipment will provide another 10,000 megawatts a decade from now, BWE said today in an e-mailed statement. Germany's coalition government is debating an extension to the planned phase-out of the country's 17 nuclear power plants. Under an existing law, most of the plants will be shut down a decade from now. "

"In his June 3 letter, Dr. Forrest Remick uses deceptive and even inaccurate statements to suggest I wasn't straight about nuclear power. His many letters to newspapers suggest he is an unabashed cheerleader for nuclear power. While claiming we need an honest discussion, Remick ignores and distorts important facts. Not surprising. Remick worked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC typically promotes nuclear power at the expense of public interests. I discovered most NRC employees defend the nuclear industry they supposedly regulate, shamefully dismissing serious threats and harms. The Gulf disaster should remind everyone why people like Remick must be challenged and why it's critical to stop funding dangerous, dirty, and costly nuclear power altogether."

Inhabitat has a post on a massive new wind farm planned for the North sea - OMA Plans Massive North Sea Wind Farm to Power Europe. This week Rem Koolhaas' Office for Metropolitan Architecture announced plans for an incredible array of oceanic wind farms that may one day produce as much energy as the Persian Gulf. Dubbed Zeekracht (sea power), the masterplan comprises a massive ring of wind farms centered around the Netherlands that spans seven adjacent countries. By calling for such a large network of communal infrastructure and knowledge, the plan takes a giant step towards ensuring European energy independency by 2025. Thanks to its high and constant wind speeds, shallow waters, and cutting-edge renewable industries, the North Sea is one of the world's most suitable areas for large scale wind farming. OMA states that "The potential magnitude of renewable energy in the North Sea in fact, approaches that of fossil fuel production in the Persian Gulf states today."

Lester R. Brown, one of the world's most widely published authors and referred to by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers", has recently published his views via the Earth Policy Institute on the nuclear vs. wind and solar power debate; stating that nuclear power is uneconomical compared to renewable energy. Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital, general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.

THE construction of the world's largest tidal farm off the north of Scotland could put lives at risk by disturbing thousands of radioactive particles from the Dounreay nuclear plant, a government adviser has warned. Dr John Large, an independent nuclear consultant who has advised the UK government, fears that laying cables to connect turbines to the national grid would release nuclear waste buried in the seabed.

Norway may be planning on becoming Europe's battery, but based on what Reuters is saying about a new proposal from Greenpeace it won't just be Norway which supplies Europe with electricity, it will be the North Sea. The head of renewable energy for the European Commission, Hans Van Steen, has called the proposal "ambitious but realistic". 118 Wind Farms + €20 Billion Electric Grid There may be no actual plan in place, but the Greenpeace proposal goes like this: Build 118 offshore wind farms by 2030 in the North Sea off the coasts of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. Connect the 68 gigawatts of power these windfarms would produce to the mainland through a grid of power cables on the sea bed, the construction of which could cost €20 billion ($29 billion).

Efforts to develop a massive environmentally friendly power plant combining photovoltaic generators and windmills that will float on the sea are progressing well, according to a team of scientists at Kyushu University. The planned plant will measure two kilometers by 800 meters and will be equipped with light-emitting diodes that shine light into the sea to promote seaweed growth, which in turn will absorb carbon dioxide and attract fish.

Report argues that energy security should be prioritised over tackling climate change, but critics claim study is guilty of exaggerating supply fears A row has erupted over the UK's ability to address the energy gap over the next decade following the publication today of a controversial report arguing that the government's focus on expanding wind capacity and failure to develop back up nuclear and fossil fuel capacity will lead to widespread power cuts.

Recent allegations that a dash for wind would cause a big increase in fuel poverty crumble when you do the numbers, says Oliver Tickell. Nuclear is the real worry "Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty" - shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK. Who can blame them? It got me listening. But do their figures stack up? And what exactly was Sir David King, former government chief scientific advisor, up to when he uttered his dire warning? In case you missed it, here's that warning in full:

he German government has approved plans to build 24 offshore wind parks with a capacity of up to 24,000 megawatts, enough to replace all 17 German nuclear power plants, Focus magazine said, citing the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH). In an excerpt of an article to be published on Monday, the magazine also said the BSH, which is the federal authority responsible for the approval of offshore activities, has received filings for an additional 50 projects.