[ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

[Jeff Terry]

I do believe that I stated "let's consider the next 30 years"

Shaping is clearly an issue with wind power. I don't believe that you  
will see hydro in the U. S., the fishing industry is too important.

3% of U. S. land is a miniscule percentage, considering that in 1982  
only 3% of U. S. land excluding Alaska was used at population density  
of 4 people per acre (Land Economics, Vol. 58, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp.  
236-259).

However, as more wind turbines are built in the farmland along the  
migratory flyways, your bird kills will greatly increase. When you  
look at the flyways (http://www.birdnature.com/allflyways.html) you  
find that much of the U. S. is covered by major migratory pathways.

Maybe, killing birds and fish is more acceptable than burying  
reprocessing and reburning nuclear fuel or/even burying it in the  
ground and this issue could be ignored. I for one would hate to see  
the 10-12 thousand Sandhill Cranes that migrate through the farmland  
of Northwest Indiana chopped up in wind turbine blades. Just a couple  
of sources:

One small wind farm kills about 1000 birds a year.
(Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity,  
Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind  
Resource Areas: 1989-91 (Sacramento: California Energy Commission,  
1992))

and my favorite quote from the Sierra Club who call wind turbines the  
"the cuisinarts of the air."
(Paul Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age, p. 450.)

Nuclear power looks better to me all of the time.

Jeff




On Feb 10, 2007, at 10:34 AM, James Salsman wrote:

> Mr. Terry,
>
> Thank you for your suggestion:
>
>> Let's limit our decrease in fossil fuel usage to 50% of our total  
>> supply.
>
> Over how many years?
>
> Wind power could satisfy a boilerplate 100% using 3% of U.S. farmland,
> and something like 92% from offshore only.  I think offshore would
> take too much fossil fuel to construct, and the farmers could use the
> extra cash, anyway.  I think we would need 20% hydro for shaping, on a
> national grid, but if each state is responsible for shaping, that
> would be a terrible waste.
>
> The problem is that putting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the
> market, which is necessary and should be subsidized, would increase
> the demand for lithium batteries, and GM claims that there is some
> global limit on lithium battery production.  Does anyone believe GM
> about that?
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman