Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
27. Two problems with your take on this.
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 04:48 PM
Jan 2012

First is your characterization of the example. It is an excellent presentation of how the cumulative numbers for rapidly built, small-scale renewable projects end up "swamping" nuclear power. 54 reactor years worth of power before the nuclear plant comes online, Baggins. That is very significant.


Then we have your false claims about the through-put of the plant in the example:
There are 4 basic components
The nacelle and its interior components is considered "the turbine"; that is what the factory in the example produces.
The tower.
The base.
The rotor.

To analogize it to an automobile the nacelle is the body and drivetrain; the tower equals the wheels; the base is similar to the tires and the rotor is the gasoline tank.

If you think that negates the significance of the cumulative nature of renewables vs the wait, wait, wait and wait some more nature of
nuclear then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

All the big dams have already been built. hunter Jan 2012 #1
Once upon a time Nederland Jan 2012 #2
We're including ethanol added to gasoline as "renewable power", are we? wtmusic Jan 2012 #3
Nukes and ethanol both have externalized social costs and require huge public subsidies Kolesar Jan 2012 #4
Wind subsidies/tax credits, as a proportion of the actual product they deliver wtmusic Jan 2012 #12
Let me show you how to support your claims kristopher Jan 2012 #6
ERROR!! ERROR!! ERROR!!! PamW Jan 2012 #9
classic move Maslo55 Jan 2012 #5
That makes no sense at all. kristopher Jan 2012 #7
This old saw PamW Jan 2012 #10
... Maslo55 Jan 2012 #28
I frequently see wind turbine blades traveling down the highway waddirum Jan 2012 #8
Compare the output power. PamW Jan 2012 #11
Hmmm… OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #13
Do you know the difference between a loan guarantee and a loan? wtmusic Jan 2012 #14
It appears that these two projects are about the same order of magnitude OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #15
A bit of a stretch. FBaggins Jan 2012 #16
This is one project OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #17
What's the next-largest in the US? FBaggins Jan 2012 #18
Why does this matter? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #19
Because it's the relevant comparison. FBaggins Jan 2012 #20
I guess we need a more precise definition of “swamp” and “meager” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #23
Roughly 4-5 times as much is "swamping" in my estimation FBaggins Jan 2012 #24
This demonstrates your false reasoning kristopher Jan 2012 #25
What percentage of the average wind turbine is produced at that plant? FBaggins Jan 2012 #26
Two problems with your take on this. kristopher Jan 2012 #27
Nope Maslo55 Jan 2012 #29
Nuclear Loan Guarantees Aren’t Just Guarantees: They are Actual Taxpayer Loans bananas Jan 2012 #30
No, they aren't. wtmusic Jan 2012 #31
Actually... they are. But why is that a bad thing? FBaggins Jan 2012 #32
IF the loan goes bad. wtmusic Jan 2012 #33
I love when nuclear proponents use that foolish claim kristopher Jan 2012 #21
Lol! And you're still spinning that nonsense. FBaggins Jan 2012 #22
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»America Is Getting More P...»Reply #27