Solar power or Nuclear Power ?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Actually property values near modern wind farms have a neutral to slight positive increase in value, generally speaking. Also, for modern tubular tower designs properly sited, the avian mortality rate is about 2 birds per wind turbine per year. The avian mortality rate for a large building is 100s per year. For a guy-wired towers, such as communicat ...[text shortened]... rs, the number is in the 1000s.

However, some types of bats do have problems with turbines.

I was just joking around about the birds.

But I'm surprised to hear you say property values are positively effected by windfarms. In Ontario, the negative impacts far outweigh the positive, likely because there is no real remote area where this source of energy is feasible. Surrounding properties are nearly always effected.

From a surveyor's report:

"I can confirm that the outlook from a property does have a major bearing on its value and if this outlook is tarnished by a wind turbine or any similar structure, the values would be significantly decreased ... Any structure that can be viewed as an intrusion into the countryside such as electricity pylons or wind turbines will have a detrimental effect [on property values]. Usually, it will not only effect the value but also saleability which is not necessarily the same thing. Generally speaking, the higher the value of the property the greater the blight will be ... " (Durrants, 1998)

Originally posted by slappy115
Actually, solar power is generated by nuclear power...

True, but very little of it is harnessed without a Dyson sphere.

Originally posted by darvlay
I was just joking around about the birds.

But I'm surprised to hear you say property values are positively effected by windfarms. In Ontario, the negative impacts far outweigh the positive, likely because there is no real remote area where this source of energy is feasible. Surrounding properties are nearly always effected.

From a surveyor's report: ...[text shortened]... the higher the value of the property the greater the blight will be ... " (Durrants, 1998)

how about the property values around decommissioned nuclear reactors?

how about the property values around decommissioned coal power stations?

will these properties go up in value when a new clean replacement comes in?

Originally posted by darvlay
I was just joking around about the birds.

But I'm surprised to hear you say property values are positively effected by windfarms. In Ontario, the negative impacts far outweigh the positive, likely because there is no real remote area where this source of energy is feasible. Surrounding properties are nearly always effected.

From a surveyor's report: ...[text shortened]... the higher the value of the property the greater the blight will be ... " (Durrants, 1998)

I understand your reasoning. I think the reason they don't see much a property value impact for most of the U.S. installations is that here the wind power is often installed on farm land, at least in the midwest, where it represents extra income and local industry for the local farmers.

However, for absentee owners of vacation homes, such as the in the case of the Nantucket Sound debacle, I can see where that may affect property values negatively.

Originally posted by flexmore
i would not like to see a functioning fusion plant ... i believe the responsible use of vast quantites of power is not likely.

I hope you are in a comfy seat...

A little about me to backup my spout of informational antics: I am a 26 year old industrial hygienist. During the months of February - April, I worked in a nuclear power plant in Michigan, USA during a routine shutdown for repairs, maintenance and refueling. With that said...

Nuclear power plants are based off a fission reaction, not fusion. Fission is where atoms are split, fusion is where they are...fused.

The nuclear world is a joke. There is no magical process that takes the fission reaction and turns it into electricity. There are a few basic styles of reactor plants, but they all basically do the same thing. They make stuff hot. Hot enough to boil things... things like water, to be more specific.

A nuclear power plant does nothing but make steam.

Granted, its a really fancy, complicated way to make high pressure steam. But steam is steam. Once the steam is created, it is pushed through a series of turbines that turn a really big magnet inside a really big generator... tada, electricity. And lots of it.

While I was at the plant, I heard it said that when they first started planning nuclear power plants, they thought it would be so efficient and cheep to produce, that it wouldn't be worth the effort to meter usage. What a bunch of crap. Even though the process is highly inefficient, the energy may still be cheep to produce. So why are we not seeing those savings? The plant I worked at scheduled a shutdown for maintenance every 18 months. The one I worked was scheduled for 39 days (realize, much like the real world, nothing in the nuclear world stays on schedule) and enlisted the aid of over 1300 union trade contractors. I pointed out thats they are all (well, most) union because they tend to get paid a little better than most non-union trades people - hence more cost.

This shutdown was on the upper end of a medium sized maintenance plan. It was more work and cost more than most, but not the most by a long shot. The money that is saved in the nuclear burn, is blown every 18 months trying to keep the whole thing from vaporizing the neighboring communities.


Ok... now, go pee and get a snack. we are now moving on to the environmental impact.

Intermission ... ... da da da ... ... da da da ...

Back? Great...here we go.

Have you ever wondered what exactly goes on inside a nuclear reactor and/or what keeps it going? What about the support materials and structures, what are they all about? Can I eat, smoke, go potty in a nuclear facility? What makes them so dangerous? What was the deal with Chernobyl?

Without giving a disertation on nuclear physics, I should tell you that nuclear fuel cells (for the most part) are rods of enriched Uranium. These rods have been pelted with billions of extra neutrons to enhance the instability of the already unstable particle structure.

I'm sure you've all seem Homer Simpson playing with the little green stick there in the opening credits. The funny part about it, they glow blue, not green.

Anyway, neutrons are used to split the Uranium atoms (don't ask how, I don't think the Nuclear Regulatory Comission would appreciate it). This split (fission) creates a crap ton of energy, mostly in the form of heat. That heat is then used to boil the water into steam for the process I described earlier. The process isn't as simple as all that, but its an overview.

This may sound all icecream and gumdrops, but there are a few ecological drawbacks. The nuclear reaction gives off a crazy amount of radiation. There are engineering controls that try to limit the amount of radiation that is alowed escape but there are certain "consumable items" that are pelted with unhelthy doses of radiation that need to be disposed of. By "consumable items" I am refering to protective clothing, paperwork, tools, machinery, temoprary walls, insulation, paint, pipes, valves, gaskets, nuts and bolts...pretty much anything that wears down and breaks over time. All of these things in close proximity to a reactor cannot just be throw away. They need to be sealed in a radiation leak-proof container and stored until the particles of radiation break down. This can take thousands of years. Imagine what would happen if one of these containers were to break open. Granted, it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal, but its still releasing toxit radiation into the environment. The shutdown I worked produced 16 tons of this type of radiation waste...not to mention the two 175 ton, 50 meter long, steel tanks that they replaced that had to be disposed of as radiation waste.

All that radiation garbage needs to go somewhere. Its usually in the ground.

On to Chernobyl. Ever heard of it? The story does tend to get out of hand at times, so here's the deal. Chernobyl was a 4 reactor nuclear power plant in what used to be USSR, now the Ukraine, just north of Kiev. In the end of April 1986, during a test on one of the reactors, they disregarded some of the safety protocal and stuff started blowing up. It instantly killed more than 30 people and high radiation was measured in over a 20 mile radius. More than 100,000 people were exposed to very unhealthy doses of radiation. There is a lot of speculation as to the full extent of the radiation on following generations.

In the early/mid 70's a plant was minutes away from a total meltdown that would have vaporized Detroit.


For my money, solar, wind and hydro are the ways to go. Even though everyone says the process to make solar panels is dangerous to the environment, it beats nuclear hands down.

Sorry for how long that is...I tend to rant.

Originally posted by GeorgeBronx
I hope you are in a comfy seat...

A little about me to backup my spout of informational antics: I am a 26 year old industrial hygienist. During the months of February - April, I worked in a nuclear power plant in Michigan, USA during a routine shutdown for repairs, maintenance and refueling. With that said...

Nuclear power plants are based off a fi ...[text shortened]... nment, it beats nuclear hands down.

Sorry for how long that is...I tend to rant.

that's a nice post, you should publish it 🙂.

Originally posted by darvlay
I was just joking around about the birds.

But I'm surprised to hear you say property values are positively effected by windfarms. In Ontario, the negative impacts far outweigh the positive, likely because there is no real remote area where this source of energy is feasible. Surrounding properties are nearly always effected.

From a surveyor's report: ...[text shortened]... the higher the value of the property the greater the blight will be ... " (Durrants, 1998)

well, they bought their own property, they didn't buy the surrounding property. sad, tho.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
that's a nice post, you should publish it 🙂.

Thanks for the rec (if that was you) I'm gald you liked it...but its hardly well thought out and full of holes. Unfortunately, not one of my better established arguments. 🙂

Originally posted by GeorgeBronx
Thanks for the rec (if that was you) I'm gald you liked it...but its hardly well thought out and full of holes. Unfortunately, not one of my better established arguments. 🙂

i liked it 🙂

this is exactly where i am also coming from ... fIssion sucks because it is messy and inneffective. fission is pathetic.

but i think you missed a little point:

just imagine we worked out how to make fUsion happen safely .... to produce energy .. lots of energy ... free ... unlimited ...

just imagine you and i and everyone had infinite quantities of energy ... i believe this would be a global disaster dwarfing anything we have seen so far.

eskimoes catching fish by heating the sea to 99C and skimming cooked fish off the top of the ocean - global consequences would be very scary.

solar power would be clean and of a limited quantity, keeping some sense in our world.

Originally posted by flexmore
i liked it 🙂

this is exactly where i am also coming from ... f[b]Ission sucks because it is messy and inneffective. fission is pathetic.

but i think you missed a little point:

just imagine we worked out how to make fUsion happen safely .... to produce energy .. lots of energy ... free ... unlimited ...

just imagine you and i and eve ...[text shortened]... 99C and skimming cooked fish off the top of the ocean - global consequences would be very scary.[/b]

I'm glad you liked it 🙂

Your sentiments toward fusion are exactly the same as the sentiments toward fission reactors oh so many years ago. everyone thought it would be cheap and abundant...but we all see how that turned out every month with our $150 electric bills.

Remember, nuclear power plants have been around since the late 50's/early 60's the only thing the general public knew of nuclear power was bombs. ...and the US government was telling them hiding under their desk or a picnic blanket would save them from the blast of building incinerating nuclear fire.

I don't see these hypothetical fusion reactors being any more cost effective than today's fission reactors. They will still need so much maintenance that they almost wont be worth the trouble. The maintenance completely undermines any savings you may have on production of power. It costs literally Millions of dollars (Pounds, Euro, Yen, etc.) every year to maintain a nuclear power plant.

The whole process is archaic and needs an overhaul.