Quote:
Originally Posted by Trantor
I really do not think the carbon footprint of a windfarm or nuclear power station changes much during their lifes. Their carbon footprint only happens when they are built.
And a nuclear power station can have a nuclear meltdown, which is much worse than any carbon footprint all windfarms in the world can generate.
|
nearly all the [wind farm] emissions occur during the manufacturing and construction phases...These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2 emissions.
[nuclear] Decommissioning accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2 emissions
(source follows below)
The UK has already been through this electricity generation sham at the "forefront" of "green technology". This is a topic I have found interesting.
For a windfarm to be built and then "pulled down" to be comparable with nuclear decomissioning and the massive associated carbon footprint is absurd, don't you think?
source:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf
UK Government
October 2006
CARBON FOOTPRINT OF
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Sorry to paste so much:
Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints. As with other low carbon
technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the
manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the
production of steel for the tower, concrete for the
foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades.10
These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2
emissions. Emissions generated during operation of wind
turbines arise from routine maintenance inspection trips.
This includes use of lubricants and transport. Onshore
wind turbines are accessed by vehicle, while offshore
turbines are maintained using boats and helicopters. The
manufacturing process for both onshore and offshore
wind plant is very similar, so life cycle assessment shows
that there is little difference between the carbon footprint
of onshore (4.64gCO2eq/kWh) versus offshore
(5.25gCO2eq/kWh) wind generation (Fig 2).11 The
footprint of an offshore turbine is marginally greater
because it requires larger foundations.
Nuclear
Nuclear power generation has a relatively small carbon
footprint (~5gCO2eq/kWh) (Fig 2). Since there is no
combustion, (heat is generated by fission of uranium or
plutonium), operational CO2 emissions account for <1%
of the total. Most emissions occur during uranium mining,
enrichment and fuel fabrication. Decommissioning
accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2 emissions, and
includes emissions arising from dismantling the nuclear
plant and the construction and maintenance of waste
storage facilities.12 The most energy intensive phase of
the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts
for 40% of the total CO2 emissions. Some commentators
have suggested that if global nuclear generation capacity
increases, higher grade uranium ore deposits would be
depleted, requiring use of lower grade ores. This has
raised concerns that the carbon footprint of nuclear
generation may increase in the future (see Issues)
And for those worried about nuclear meltdowns, how many times do you think these have ever occurred? How many people do you think have died? Can you compare that to the amount of people who have died working in other electricity generation methods like coal mining? There is no comparison.
source:
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovelock-wind-power.html
Dr James Lovelock:
Dr Lovelock has been a lifelong environmentalist and member of the green movement. He says the more "pragmatic" nations, such as France, Finland, Sweden, Japan and China, are embracing nuclear power as they believe it is the most viable and safe source of energy for the future.
So why are we scared of it? "I think the reason is just simple politics," he declares. "Our Government is persuaded that there are so many people in Britain who are frightened off nuclear energy by fiction, mainly films. Bad fiction written by good writers. It continues to pervade and give the impression it is the most evil thing.
"I would take high-level waste if they would let me have it. I would have it just over there," he says, pointing to the hedge visible from his sitting room window.
"We could use it for home heating. They could put in a concrete pit and it would stay hot. What a waste not to use it. People have got in mind great big glowing slag heaps. It's all nonsense."
He dismisses Chernobyl as a "nasty accident that killed 45 people" saying it was not comparable to the amount of people who die in an air crash or in an industrial accident such as Bhopal in India, which killed 3,500 people and maimed countless others.
He believes that if we are concerned about health risks we should consider how many people are dying as a result of climate change. He estimates that last summer's heatwave in Europe killed upwards of 20,000 people.
"The area around Chernobyl has been invaded by wildlife and allowed to flourish as it has been left alone. It doesn't mind the radiation in the least," he says.
"We have lived under a lot of absolute nonsense for years and years about radiation. You can't live without breathing oxygen, but it's also the most ubiquitous carcinogen of the lot. Just breathing daily is equivalent to quite a hefty radiation dose."
Apologies for the length of this post, but to stay on topic future wind turbines should be used to supplement the enerygy requirements of small scale projects in suitable (windy) locations. Large wind turbines will be a legacy of a naive "green" generation.