Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Can Wind Power meet the energy needs of Britain in the 21st century or is it just a lot of overblown hype?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

stephendavion
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:29 am

Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by stephendavion »

Costruction of Mill Creek onshore Wind farm is started in Jan 2013 and expected to start commercial operation by end of 2014. Its a 60MW renewable power project which is built in Ohariu Valley near Wellingtong, New Zealnd. Upon Completion it can provide Electricity for 30k Houses.

More>>>

Its good to see many countries opting renewable energy .... thats a good sign and hopefully world stop " depending " on coal for power which is causing for diseases and eventually deaths. I say we should also say " No " to Nuclear power which is a dangerous one, live ex: Fukushima disaster. No one dead but the fear will be forever.

studay on Coal pollution read here.

the future of the power industry will be --->Sun, Wind, Tidal .
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by Little John »

stephendavion wrote:Costruction of Mill Creek onshore Wind farm is started in Jan 2013 and expected to start commercial operation by end of 2014. Its a 60MW renewable power project which is built in Ohariu Valley near Wellingtong, New Zealnd. Upon Completion it can provide Electricity for 30k Houses.

More>>>

Its good to see many countries opting renewable energy .... thats a good sign and hopefully world stop " depending " on coal for power which is causing for diseases and eventually deaths. I say we should also say " No " to Nuclear power which is a dangerous one, live ex: Fukushima disaster. No one dead but the fear will be forever.

studay on Coal pollution read here.

the future of the power industry will be --->Sun, Wind, Tidal .
Why will the fear from Fukushima be "forever"?

The nuclear waste from Fukushima is largely iodine and caesium with some additional tiny deposits of tellurium, strontium and plutonium,

The half life of Iodine is 8 days and of caesium it is 30 years. The waste is widely dispersed and so is reasonably dilute and will become more so with the passage of time. The iodine is already pretty safe I would have thought given it's half life and the caesium is is halving in danger every thirty years. The tellurium has a half life of only 6 days and does not biologically accumulate like iodine. Finally, the tiny deposits of strontium and plutonium 239 and 240, although having very long half lives, are in such small amounts as to be barely detectable above background levels that were deposited worldwide during the US and Soviet nuclear tests of the 50s and sixties.

The WHO (World Heath Authority) has already carried out a preliminary assessment of the future health risks and has stated they do not consider that those risks will be "statistically detectable".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation ... _emissions
Last edited by Little John on Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12675
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Well the oldest man in Japan has apparently just died, so we'll see.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8818
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by clv101 »

stevecook172001 wrote:...Why will the fear from Fukushima be "forever"?
Indeed. It is rather impressive (and at odds with much environmental communication) that even with the catastrophic failure no one seems to have died from Fukushima and as the WHO says future deaths won't be "statistically detectable". Compare this to a coal powerstation with its routine statistically detectable deaths and CO2 and it makes you wonder what all the fuss is about!

Sure, nuclear powerstations produce a radioactive legacy which we haven't figured out how to deal with. However, I'm not convinced this is worse than the similarly unsolved CO2 legacy though.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:Why will the fear from Fukushima be "forever"?

The nuclear waste from Fukushima is largely iodine and caesium with some additional tiny deposits of tellurium, strontium and plutonium,
Those isotopes are just that tiny fraction of the power station cores that were scattered to the four winds, which actually turned out to be almost exclusively one off-shore wind, taking the stuff away from Tokyo.

99% of the waste is still sitting in three big blobs under what were once reactors and in a storage pond on legs. This waste is forever and there is no good plan for dealing with it.
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by Little John »

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:Why will the fear from Fukushima be "forever"?

The nuclear waste from Fukushima is largely iodine and caesium with some additional tiny deposits of tellurium, strontium and plutonium,
Those isotopes are just that tiny fraction of the power station cores that were scattered to the four winds, which actually turned out to be almost exclusively one off-shore wind, taking the stuff away from Tokyo.

99% of the waste is still sitting in three big blobs under what were once reactors and in a storage pond on legs. This waste is forever and there is no good plan for dealing with it.
What is the type and ratio of the waste concentrated under the plant? in other words, how much is iodine, how much is caesium, how much is plutonium etc?
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:What is the type and ratio of the waste concentrated under the plant? in other words, how much is iodine, how much is caesium, how much is plutonium etc?
Most of the blobs' content will be uranium and it doesn't matter much what the other bits are so long as they remain within the blob and the blob remains isolated from the biosphere FOREVER.

As I said, we don't actually have a plan to ensure that.
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by Little John »

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:What is the type and ratio of the waste concentrated under the plant? in other words, how much is iodine, how much is caesium, how much is plutonium etc?
Most of the blobs' content will be uranium and it doesn't matter much what the other bits are so long as they remain within the blob and the blob remains isolated from the biosphere FOREVER.

As I said, we don't actually have a plan to ensure that.
Hang on a minute. Forever?

If an isotope is dangerously radioactive, that is to say, it has a high decay rate, then its half life will be commensurately short. That being the case, by definition it does not need to be isolated from the biosphere "FOREVER".

On the other hand, if the half life of an isotope is very long, then this is because it has a much less dangerous level of radioactivity, that is to say, it's decay rate is low. In which case it does not need to be isolated from the rest of the biosphere at all (and certainly not "FOREVER") if it is in sufficient dilution in the earth's crust. Which is, of course, precisely the case with naturally occurring uranium 235, which is distributed throughout the crust in a ratio of around 4 parts per million.

What's with the knee-jerk, hysterical alarmism?
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:Hang on a minute. Forever?
Well, take for example plutonium 239. It has a half-life of 24100 years. Now in my human scale way of thinking that is approximately forever. Plutonium is approximately the most toxic substance known.

It needs to be kept separate from the biosphere forever.

We don't have a plan for doing this.
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: Mill Creek Wind Farm near Wellington, NZ

Post by Little John »

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:Hang on a minute. Forever?
Well, take for example plutonium 239. It has a half-life of 24100 years. Now in my human scale way of thinking that is approximately forever. Plutonium is approximately the most toxic substance known.

It needs to be kept separate from the biosphere forever.

We don't have a plan for doing this.
The half life rate of a given isotope is directly related to how much radiation it emits. The shorter the half life, the more radioactive it is and vice versa.

So, if a given isotope that naturally occurs in the earth at a given concentration has a half life of, say, X then another isotope that has a half-life of X/2 will have have twice the level of radioactivity. In which case, it simply needs to be dispersed in the earth's crust in half the concentration of the first isotope in order to pose no higher radiation risk than the first isotope.

I mean, goodness me B, how on earth do you cope each day knowing that uranium is lurking in the environment all around you at a rate of 4 parts per million.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

If only life were so simple. To be a little pedantic, it's not how much it emits but the rate of emission from a given mass, but anyway...
My example was plutonium, which does not actually occur naturally (well, there is the possibility of a little in a rather odd bit of geology in west Africa).
Then there's the thing about not all radiation being the same. Plutonium emits alpha particles, and then it gets a whole lot more complex as you go down the decay chain.
And then there's the thing that our nuclear waste is concentrated in large blobs and not dispersed through enormous volumes of deeply buried rock. We don't have a plan for the reverse of mining and concentration.
And then there's the fact that even the dispersed naturally occurring uranium poses very serious hazards in terms of the decay product radon seeping into our houses such that we have laws about the gas-tightness of buildings in geologically vulnerable parts of the country. A significant number of deaths occur from this problem.
Fortunately, I sleep easy as my particular neck of the woods has a lot less than 4ppm of uranium.
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

biffvernon wrote:If only life were so simple. To be a little pedantic, it's not how much it emits but the rate of emission from a given mass, but anyway...
My example was plutonium, which does not actually occur naturally (well, there is the possibility of a little in a rather odd bit of geology in west Africa).
Then there's the thing about not all radiation being the same. Plutonium emits alpha particles, and then it gets a whole lot more complex as you go down the decay chain.
And then there's the thing that our nuclear waste is concentrated in large blobs and not dispersed through enormous volumes of deeply buried rock. We don't have a plan for the reverse of mining and concentration.
And then there's the fact that even the dispersed naturally occurring uranium poses very serious hazards in terms of the decay product radon seeping into our houses such that we have laws about the gas-tightness of buildings in geologically vulnerable parts of the country. A significant number of deaths occur from this problem.
Fortunately, I sleep easy as my particular neck of the woods has a lot less than 4ppm of uranium.
I already know, as well you know, that the amount of radiation emitted is going to be a function of the concentration of mass as well as they decay rate, which is precisely why I made specific mention of dilution rates. Please do try not to be so predictably supercilious.

And yes, I am aware that plutonium largely emits, at least initially while it is still plutonium, alpha particles. These would be the one's that are, in fact, the least able to penetrate organic tissue when compared to beta particles, which are 8000 times smaller than alpha particles, and gamma rays which are without mass and so can fully pass though solid objects. But, then, you did know that didn't you?

And yes, I agree, there is currently no serious plan that I am aware of for reverse mining (in large part due to the hysterical fear engendered in the public of all things nuclear by people such as yourself who are educated and so should know better). However, that is a problem of culture/politics and not of physics/geology which you are implying with the use of hysterically alarmist terms such as "FOREVER".

I should be clear here about my own attitude to nuclear energy just so as to cut-off-at-the-pass any attempt to try to pin a label of bias on me. I am, in fact, ambivalent about nuclear, if not actually tending towards being anti-nuclear. But, my reasons for being so are far from being based on the kind of irrational nonsense I have been reading here.
Last edited by Little John on Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:00 pm, edited 5 times in total.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

If nuclear material is so safe I wonder why my wife spent the latter part of her working life monitoring the amount of radioactivity in the environment in and around the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire. She wore two different tags to monitor her personal exposure in different ways, as does everyone working there, and any exposure above a certain level was treated as dangerous. We still have a monitor in our garden to give a guide to background levels of radiation.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Little John
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

kenneal - lagger wrote:If nuclear material is so safe I wonder why my wife spent the latter part of her working life monitoring the amount of radioactivity in the environment in and around the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire. She wore two different tags to monitor her personal exposure in different ways, as does everyone working there, and any exposure above a certain level was treated as dangerous. We still have a monitor in our garden to give a guide to background levels of radiation.
She did all of that stuff and the nuclear industry in general does all of that stuff because we take the risks of radiation seriously, just as we should. Just as is the case with any industry that has to handle toxic substances.

I'm not sure what your point is K, over and above that nuclear safety should be taken seriously. I don't think anyone sensible would argue with that.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

That any radiation is considered dangerous even in very small doses.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Post Reply