6 ms·

Which is an unfair point because we have yet to see what costs are associated with safely dismantling and replacing all those miles upon miles of solar panels a

Which is an unfair point because we have yet to see what costs are associated with safely dismantling and replacing all those miles upon miles of solar panels and wind turbines will be. Nuclear has been deployed on a larger scale for a long time so the costs are known. How many miles of solar panels, wind turbines, and battery backup are needed to produce the same amount of energy as a single nuclear plant? I imagine if you do the math at scale, it turns out to be negligible, if not more expensive for renewables.

bjourne 5y ago
Old wind power plants are often repowered. Wind turbines that have reached their EOL are replaced with newer and more efficient ones, significantly incrasing the output of the plant: > “Repowering is happening and will increase. It’s a great opportunity to get more energy from today’s wind farms. Repowering reduces the number of turbines by a third while tripling the electricity output. And it preserves the existing wind farm sites which often have the best wind conditions. Governments need repowering strategies that set the right framework and ensure efficient permitting procedures for repowering”, says WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson. Most of the material used in wind turbines can be recycled: > Wind turbines are a valuable source of resources which can be reused in the circular economy. 85-90% of a dismantled wind turbine are recycled today, including the towers, foundations, generators and gearboxes. Most of these materials are made up of concrete, steel and cast iron which are easy to recycle and for which there is an active circular economy market in Europe. https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-when-wind-turbines-get-old-new-industry-guidance-document-for-dismantling-and-decommissioning/ https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-...
dukeyukey 5y ago
We've been running electric wind turbines for 70+ years (and non-electric for thousands) at this point, the costs are well-known. Less so for solar panels, but still decades. And the bonus here is that neither can fail catastrophically the way nuclear plants do. As for size, sure, nuclear plants are more compact. But you can't build nuclear plants on top of people's houses, or in the North Sea. Investors and actuaries have done the math, and renewables are just plain cheaper per Kwh, at least in today's landscape.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  This rebuttal doesn't measure up. You can't compare wind turbines from 70 years ago to today. (I noticed the convenient deemphasizing of solar farms. Look up issues with abandoned solar farms.) The last point is moot. Land is abundant in America. I also question the hand-wavy "investors have done the math"
EricE 5y ago
No kidding. Search for abandoned wind farm - it’s pretty frighting. Fiberglass is not easy to recycle. Same with solar cells. I see them putting up thousands of acres of solar cells in the Nevada desert - will be fun to see what happens 20 years from now. Local cities who leased the land out to those farms are making money now - but are they going to get stuck with an expensive clean up if those companies go bust in 20 years because the market changes, subsidies have ended, etc? It’s nuts.
FredPret 5y ago
Besides the material wastage you mention, also think of the habitat destruction this causes. One small nuclear plant can replace many acres of noisy, ugly, inefficient and bird-killing windmills and panels
- EricE 5y ago
  If wind farms are so wonderful why isn’t there a huge one off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard? People bristle at terms like “virtue signal” - here’s an opportunity for our “elites” to show some real leadership. I won’t hold my breath.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > inefficient Ironically, wind turbines are more efficient than nuclear power plants. Solar panels are not, but at least they do direct energy conversion from sunlight (whereas the nameplate efficiency of nuclear power plants additionally ignores the requirements of the fuel processing chain that starts with removing mountains of ~500ppm ore these days).

bjourne 5y ago

Old wind power plants are often repowered. Wind turbines that have reached their EOL are replaced with newer and more efficient ones, significantly incrasing the output of the plant: > “Repowering is happening and will increase. It’s a great opportunity to get more energy from today’s wind farms. Repowering reduces the number of turbines by a third while tripling the electricity output. And it preserves the existing wind farm sites which often have the best wind conditions. Governments need repowering strategies that set the right framework and ensure efficient permitting procedures for repowering”, says WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson. Most of the material used in wind turbines can be recycled: > Wind turbines are a valuable source of resources which can be reused in the circular economy. 85-90% of a dismantled wind turbine are recycled today, including the towers, foundations, generators and gearboxes. Most of these materials are made up of concrete, steel and cast iron which are easy to recycle and for which there is an active circular economy market in Europe. https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-when-wind-turbines-get-old-new-industry-guidance-document-for-dismantling-and-decommissioning/ https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-...

dukeyukey 5y ago

We've been running electric wind turbines for 70+ years (and non-electric for thousands) at this point, the costs are well-known. Less so for solar panels, but still decades. And the bonus here is that neither can fail catastrophically the way nuclear plants do. As for size, sure, nuclear plants are more compact. But you can't build nuclear plants on top of people's houses, or in the North Sea. Investors and actuaries have done the math, and renewables are just plain cheaper per Kwh, at least in today's landscape.

dimitrios1 5y ago
This rebuttal doesn't measure up. You can't compare wind turbines from 70 years ago to today. (I noticed the convenient deemphasizing of solar farms. Look up issues with abandoned solar farms.) The last point is moot. Land is abundant in America. I also question the hand-wavy "investors have done the math"

EricE 5y ago

No kidding. Search for abandoned wind farm - it’s pretty frighting. Fiberglass is not easy to recycle. Same with solar cells. I see them putting up thousands of acres of solar cells in the Nevada desert - will be fun to see what happens 20 years from now. Local cities who leased the land out to those farms are making money now - but are they going to get stuck with an expensive clean up if those companies go bust in 20 years because the market changes, subsidies have ended, etc? It’s nuts.

FredPret 5y ago

Besides the material wastage you mention, also think of the habitat destruction this causes. One small nuclear plant can replace many acres of noisy, ugly, inefficient and bird-killing windmills and panels

EricE 5y ago
If wind farms are so wonderful why isn’t there a huge one off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard? People bristle at terms like “virtue signal” - here’s an opportunity for our “elites” to show some real leadership. I won’t hold my breath.
jhgb 5y ago
> inefficient Ironically, wind turbines are more efficient than nuclear power plants. Solar panels are not, but at least they do direct energy conversion from sunlight (whereas the nameplate efficiency of nuclear power plants additionally ignores the requirements of the fuel processing chain that starts with removing mountains of ~500ppm ore these days).