Sunday, March 29, 2009

Cute Quotes To Picnik

Is it worth it?


So ...

It 's a bit that I do not hear. However, today on the blog of my fellow citizen, I find this nothing short of "enlightening" article, I propose to you in full:

wind energy, this unknown
E 'of these days the news that a wind farm consisting of 35 turbines will be enough to total domestic demand in the Middle Campidano families (about 100,000 inhabitants) The investment is 20 million €. Now, the calculation is easy: multiply by 16 the number of blades (which becomes 560) and million euro needed for the investment (now 320) and I have total self-sufficiency electricity for residential use of Sardinia. In short, rounded up to EUR 350 million and I got all the Sardinians have the power clean, renewable indefinitely, with only the maintenance costs of pale.Se going to look abroad to countries that make up the central third generation we see that the cost of centralefinlandese at Olkiluoto will cost consumers Scandinavian € 3 billion, according to an estimate of the consortium of heavy industry that helped finance the construction of the Finnish Central. This amounts to a doubling of the original budget of about 3.2 miliardi.E this in a country known to be serious, let alone by us .. I mean, with one-tenth of the cost of a nuclear power can make the entire supply through eolico.Che say, worth it?


it worth it? To find out, let us arm ourselves pocket calculator (cost € 5.00 to Aucian), and let's do the math, so ...
- assuming that the average distance between the wind turbine is approximately 200 to 300 meters, in order not to create turbulence going to decrease the efficiency of the system, we get concerned that the turbines would be enclosed within in square of 2.25 km ², equivalent to a square of 1, 5 km of side.
- now multiply by 16 (see that the 35 turbines can theoretically serve 100,000 people and we are declining population 1,600,000), and we get a square surface of 36 square kilometers, or with a side of 6 km (just to see the issue, more or less the separation Costa Smeralda between the airport and the Mall Newfoundland).
- if this data will still appear acceptable you have to consider that the "square mesh" is influenced by factors that are further apart, the distance between the blades (it just so happens that Sardinia is the Po Valley, and the presence duque hills or mountains clearly influence the power and direction of prevailing winds, creating - in addition - vortices, depression, etc. ...). Therefore we say that - in the indicative - the area of \u200b\u200bthis square of 36 square kilometers of surface, can be increased to 360 square kilometers, equivalent to a quad that is the side about 19 km (km more, less km), that is - always to show the question - as the distance between Olbia and Monti.
- if this data will still seem acceptable (optimistic at all costs, right?), You must think that hainoi the efficacy of this system is somewhat "natural fiber", at least according to the standards of hydroelectricity. From Wikipedia we learn that " The maximum efficiency of a wind farm can be calculated using the Betz's Law, which shows how energy maxim that a generator can produce any (such as a windmill) and 59.3% of that possessed by the wind that passes through. This efficiency is very difficult to achieve, and a wind turbine with an efficiency of 40% to 50% is considered excellent. "
So, if we were to depend almost exclusively from wind, it would take many more turbines high efficiency. Also, realize that these wind turbines to meet the optimim should be arranged in rows, or to cross a cluster structures, gambling that the area will grow by at least a factor of 10, that is 3600 sq km, that is equal to a square of side 60 km.
- there still seems acceptable? If you think that:
a) there are productive activities "energy intensive" that consume a lot of energy ... and then the wind turbines would be even more
b) systems based on wind turbines must be integrated to ensure contini to energy from other support systems (solar panels, hydroelectric power stations, fuel stations and so on ...), so I still need more territory.
c) the maximum yield occurs with platforms offshore, that is deposited in the open sea, where currents do not encounter obstacles (you imagine lospettacolo: Tavolara, the sea and wind turbines to be sick ...).

Against this background, we can respond to the good Andrea Randaccio, which asks us "worth it?" I do not think so, for a variety of environmental reasons (just like you) and practical. In fact, at present, which pollutes less than it is the nuclear (horrors!!); To somebody all this may sound like blasphemy ... but think about it, without preconceptions, to the fact that:
a) cases of environmental contamination (excluding the Chernobyl disaster, which must be counted among the deliberate actions of sabotage and not between the incidents) are virtually zero, and in any case much lower than that produced by coal or fuel oil;
b) the waste is stored in secure and monitored and partially converted;
c) the reactor current and future construction of reuse their waste, significantly reducing the waste matter. Those of the next generation will have an almost negligible waste production, and already there are concrete steps towards the vitrification of them, with a reduction to zero of the danger of contamination.

Therefore, at the cost of looking like a subversive, I'd rather have a nuclear power plant in Sardinia, rather than a landscape marred by fans mirrors or solar, or similar crap.


http://www.moncadaenergy.com/it/impianti_costruzione/simulazione_cattolica.jpg