You cannot do that. Windmills need to be placed at places where winds are relatively consistent, and not too strong. Otherwise you have too many breakdowns.
I was involved with the implementation of the windmill park for General Electric in Bergen op Zoom, and worked in Geertruidenberg in a coal power plant. Even the most efficient windmill parks only deliver power 20% of the time. If the wind blows to hard, the blades will be set in fan mode so the wind just blows by it. Too little, and the mills don't produce optimally with irregular power spikes and sags that need to be capped before transferring the power to the grid. You cannot convert the power grid on a power source that only delivers at random intervals, you need a power supply on demand. Hydroelectric plants like in Iceland are much better, steady current, steady power, no carbon emissions. But we do not all live in Iceland or Switzerland.
As for nuclear waste, even though the environmentalists won't listen to this, with regards to waste and storage and carbon footprints, modern (not the Sellafield kind) nuclear power plants are the most environmentally friendly method of generating power on demand.
An average size Nuclear reactor will produce about 1 cubic meter of waste a year. A standard Nuclear power plant is using 6 to 10 reactors. Compare that to a coal burning boiler, where 16 truck loads of carcinogenic fly-ash is being moved a day. Never mind the heavy metal, hot water being returned to the rivers or canals, and the amount of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide being pumped into the air.
I was involved with the implementation of the windmill park for General Electric in Bergen op Zoom, and worked in Geertruidenberg in a coal power plant. Even the most efficient windmill parks only deliver power 20% of the time. If the wind blows to hard, the blades will be set in fan mode so the wind just blows by it. Too little, and the mills don't produce optimally with irregular power spikes and sags that need to be capped before transferring the power to the grid. You cannot convert the power grid on a power source that only delivers at random intervals, you need a power supply on demand. Hydroelectric plants like in Iceland are much better, steady current, steady power, no carbon emissions. But we do not all live in Iceland or Switzerland.
As for nuclear waste, even though the environmentalists won't listen to this, with regards to waste and storage and carbon footprints, modern (not the Sellafield kind) nuclear power plants are the most environmentally friendly method of generating power on demand.
An average size Nuclear reactor will produce about 1 cubic meter of waste a year. A standard Nuclear power plant is using 6 to 10 reactors. Compare that to a coal burning boiler, where 16 truck loads of carcinogenic fly-ash is being moved a day. Never mind the heavy metal, hot water being returned to the rivers or canals, and the amount of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide being pumped into the air.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
