Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wind power cheaper than nuclear, says European Union climate chief.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:30 PM
Original message
Wind power cheaper than nuclear, says European Union climate chief.
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 12:30 PM by Better Believe It


Wind power cheaper than nuclear, says EU climate chief
Connie Hedegaard says declining cost of offshore wind energy makes it genuine alternative to crisis-hit nuclear industry
By Fiona Harvey in Brussels and Terry Macalister
March 17, 2011

Generating energy from wind turbines at sea would be cheaper than building new atomic power plants, Europe's climate chief has said, in the latest challenge to the crisis-stricken nuclear industry.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, said: "Some people tend to believe that nuclear is very, very cheap, but offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear. People should believe that this is very, very cheap."

Offshore wind energy has long been seen as an expensive way of generating power, costing about two to three times more than erecting turbines on land, but the expense is likely to come down, while the costs of nuclear energy are opaque, according to analysis by the European commission.

Hedegaard told the European Wind Energy Association's annual conference in Brussels that the problems facing nuclear power put renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, back in the spotlight.


Thanet wind farm off the coast of Ramsgate, Kent.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-eu-climate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. And you don't have to store the waste for a million years, either...K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Of course it is.
And I have NEVER seen anyone in the nuke porn crowd admit to the TRUE cost of nukes: billions in government subsidy and the cost of illness and death, not to mention the radioactive waste issue, which we STILL have not solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. And the sad thing is that this has been known for a couple of years now,
Both wind and solar are now cheaper than nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think there are two huge obstacles to switching to wind/solar:
1. Every other energy source has hidden subsidies and hidden or deferred costs. For example, What does a gallon of gasoline cost when you factor in tax write-offs, damage to the environment, cost of maintaining a defense establishment around the oil fields, etc? What is the cost of coal when you factor in deaths from respiratory illness? What is the cost of nuclear power when you have to keep track of the waste for 10,000 years?

2. Every other energy source is based on a few large sources of energy; refineries, power plants. A switch to wind/solar would require construction of a grid capable of switching among many different small sources as they switch on and off. That's a fairly simple technical problem when compared to developing the means to finance many small construction projects as opposed to a single massive project. Every house is supplied with electricity now, but who can afford to put solar panels on their roof? Clearly, we're paying for the power plant down the road somehow, but the cost has been spread out enough for us to afford it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC