Posted on 29 June, 2011 by Mathew
||Windpower capacity (MW)
Source: Wikipedia/ World Wind Energy Report 2010. World Wind Energy Association. February 2011.
World’s largest offshore wind farms Wind farm (from Wikipedia various refs (click)
||Turbines and model
||100 × Vestas V90-3MW
|Horns Rev II
||91 × Siemens 2.3-93
||90 × Siemens 2.3-93
|Lynn and Inner Dowsing
|| United Kingdom
||54 × Siemens 3.6-107
|Robin Rigg (Solway)
||60 × Vestas V90-3MW
||48 × Siemens 3.6-107
|Nysted (Rødsand I)
||72 × Siemens 2.3
Looks like capacity of single wind turbines for offshore is 3MW each. That means we need less than 2000 to replace a nuclear power station… Now it’s only 1334.
Total capacity for UK is now around the 1 nuclear power station mark.
Filed under: climate | Tagged: Nuclear Renaissance, Replace nuclear, Wind Power | Leave a Comment »
Posted on 19 March, 2011 by Mathew
“It’s not like if you ate it right away you would be harmed,” Edano said. “It would not be good to continue to eat it for some time.”
Edano said the amount of radiation detected in the milk was the equivalent to one CT scan – the series of X-rays used for medical tests – if consumed continually for a year.
I’m not sure it really works like that, this is misleading because it is comparing two different types of radiation. A CT scan is also done for medical reasons, so it is clearly ethical when it can provide information which can save someone (all that is necessary is that it is beneficial on balance).
The main difference is that the CT scan will effect the whole body, but if you ingest radioactive iodine it will be concentrated in the relatively smaller area of your pituitary gland.
I think this is something about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation, and the difference between Sievert scale and Grey or rad.
I also noticed in the media we are constantly confusing what is harmful with that is measurable. There is an assumption that if we can’t measure the harm then none was done. But to be statistically significant you would probably need a lot more deaths, and you would still be able to argue it was dependent on other events.
Should take 2 weeks before radiation emitted into the atmosphere in Japan (or Korea or China) reaches UK, half life of radioactive Iodine is 8 days, so it should be reduced to 1/4 level emitted there, and presumably gets a lot more diluted and gets washed from atmosphere. There is still a risk of radiation wash out if all the cloud of gas is deposited into a small location, for example because of a thunderstorm.
Filed under: energy | Tagged: Nuclear Renaissance, Replace nuclear | Leave a Comment »
Posted on 15 March, 2011 by Mathew
My thought go out to all those in Japan in the continuing disaster which seems to be going on after the earth quake struck last week.
I didn’t understand what is happening in the plant from the media reports I heard on the radio… but the situation seems to still be developing.
Can anyone explain to me why it is not possible to cool a nuclear power station with a passive system like the ones used to move the water around a central heating system? Is it more expensive or less efficient? Are there cooling systems which don’t rely on water?
Information from Wikipedia page Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant:
The units are all GE designed, reactors 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi.
On 11 March 2011 an earthquake categorised as 9.0 MW on the moment magnitude scale occurred at 14:46 Japan Standard Time (JST) off the northeast coast of Japan. This led to cooling problems in reactors 1, 2 and 3. Over 170,000 people were evacuated after officials voiced the possibility of a meltdown. The external structure of Units 1, 2, and 3 collapsed after hydrogen explosions. The containment building of Unit 1 and 3 remained intact, but Unit 2 was feared damaged. On 15 March 2011, the Unit 4 fuel pond caught fire, increasing radiation levels and prompting more evacuations.
Reactors 1, 2 and 3 have been filled with seawater and are likely to be decommissioned, since it is not cost effective to decontaminate.
Filed under: energy, Engineering | Tagged: Nuclear Renaissance, Replace nuclear | Leave a Comment »