The Largest Wind Farm In The World: Horse Hollow

horse_hollow_wind.jpg

What is the largest wind farm in the world? Well, right now it’s the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas. This wind farm has 421 wind turbines that generate a total capacity of 735 megawatts. The wind turbines are spread across 47,000 acres of land in Taylor and Nolan County, Texas.


horse_hollow_wind_farm_texas.jpg
There are 291 GE Energy 1.5 megawatt wind turbines and 130 Siemens 2.3 megawatt wind turbines.

Horsehollow_wind_turbines.jpg

The turbines are owned by Florida Power & Light (FPL Energy). The company operates 46 other wind farms throughout the U.S., they have a total capacity of 4,002 megawatts.

Comments

  1. Jim Kimbrell says

    I wish my town that I live in owned a small wind farm, a co-op wind farm so the residents here could get a break on electricity

  2. Jim Kimbrell says

    I wish my little town could own a small wind farm. A co-op wind farm so that the local resident could save on their electric bill.

  3. Kelly says

    You’d really want this God-awful mess in your backyard?! Careful what you wish for. We have them sprawled across our once peaceful and beautiful scenic county, and now you can’t leave you home or look out your window with out seeing one of these “green” monsters. Do your research, they’re not as green as the developers would lead you to believe. Don’t buy into their nonsense. It’s all about profit, and not about energy savings!

    • says

      You’ve told a good thought. But currently, there is a growth in Offshore building of Wind Farms. And it looks like we die earlier from H1 N1 then from lack of electricity or visual impact… =)
      And as far as profit is concerned, USA always thought about profit..
      As long ago as They won second world war
      And nowadays, the third world war is taking place…

  4. Dean says

    Hi Kelly,
    is there a better solution to the nations energy needs? more coal and gas burning power plants? talk about not being “green”! I would rather see more spinning wind mills and solar panels than clouds of toxic waste spewing into the atmosphere….

    I have done research… Please explain, what is not “green” about them?
    I am not trying to be condescending but may have missed somethings that you did not.

    Lastly, every aspect about ANY business is profit. What is wrong with making a profit? Do you work? if so, your company must also be making a profit in order to employ you and give you a paycheck.

    PRO – WIND/SOLAR!

  5. Jim says

    I just finished analyzing E-O-Y annual production figures on three (3), wind farms. Two of the wind farms are in California (Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm, 5,000 wind turbines with installed capacity of 960MW and Altamont Pass Wind Farm, 4,900 wind turbines with installed capacity of 576MW). The average daily output per wind turbine at Tehachapi is 0.7 MW/day and for each wind turbine at Altamont it’s 0.6MW/day. The third wind farm was the King Mountain Wind Farm in Texas. King Mountain has 214 wind turbines, installed capacity of 278.2MW. The average daily output of each King Mtn. wind turbine is 9.9MW daily.

    Facts are: a wind turbine hasn’t resulted to present date of a single ounce of CO2, or NOx emission being saved. No evidence exist that a single coal power plant has been cancelled from the creation of a wind farm. Also a little known secret: every MW installed capacity of a wind farm must be backed up with another (coal, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, or another) energy source.

    To give you an example – a 4MW renewable green energy biomass power plant will output a steady and continuous 96MW per day with no CO2 or NOx emissions. The per MW construction cost of a biomass power plant is in the worst case equal to or in best case half the construction cost of a single wind turbine. From the wind farm data above it would take 10 each (at best) to 160 (at worst) wind turbines to equal the output of one 4MW biomass power plant running a continuous 24/7 with a constant 4MW per hour electricity to the grid.

    You tell me which energy source delivers the “bigger bang for your buck” and which would you rely on to be there when you need and demand it. A few things to consider and think on.

    Thanks, Jim

      • Kay says

        Jim,
        Take any fuel operated power plant, whether operating at 5% or 100% capacity, it requires energy to keep it running 24/7. A wind turbine does not. One or two wind turbines could easily reduce the fuel requirement used to operate a biomass power plant. That is as green as you are going to get at this time along with solar energy. Biggest bang for your buck would be wind power and solar energy and NOT biomass or nuclear power plants unless of course you want actual big bangs to happen. Google Chernobyl and then others that were considered close calls.

        Kelly,
        I don’t think you did that much research or you are only looking at one side. Wind Energy can help people and the planet more than you know. Would you rather have a power plant with lights and loud sounds and trucks 24/7 making smog and tearing up on the countryside? Wind turbines do not give off hazards like other “natural” biofuels such as gas, oil and coal. They do poison our soil to the point where it is unusable for generations. They do not poison our water where our families are sick and constantly in the hospital for nosebleeds, headaches, cancer, lukemia, rashes etc. Wind Turbines do not take over the air we need to breathe with fumes that make people faint, lungs shut down and your body deteriorates. Would you rather have gas lines from fracking all over the place being used by companies that do not adhere to safety? They don’t care who gets sick and dies because they only care about the billions of dollars that is really blood money. I’ll be more than happy to fill you in on what is going on in Midland, TX, Wise County, TX and soon to be the DFW Metroplex regarding hydrofracking.

        Look, Learn and Live.

  6. Dean says

    Jim,
    Thanks for the information however Bio seems to have its issues as well…

    http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/disadvantage-of-biomass.html
    * Greenhouse gases produced by burning
    * Extra costs of installing technology to process and recycle wastes
    * Expensive to collect, harvest and store raw materials
    * Large scale crop production will use vast areas of land and water

    I am not saying solar/wind is the end all answer and i do agree that its best use is to back up existing generation systems. I am not apposed to nuclear, coal/gas, bio, hydro, tidal… I believe that a combination of these energy sources (built in the optimal locations) can help provide a cost effective power source for all when needed.

    I think the best thing we could do is to learn how to conserve the energy produced, therefor decreasing the demand, which will decreasing the cost due to supply and demand. I recall during the rolling brown outs that several large businesses were curtailing their use… seems no one conserves until its too late. I live completely off grid and conserve my use nearly every day. It takes some planning and adjusting my lifestyle but it does make me appreciate it more! also keeps my kids from being planted in front of the TV/Xbox for countless hours of the day!

  7. Bill says

    Nuclear is the way to go. Zero emissions, small amount of completely containable waste, competitive with coal as one of the cheapest ways to produce energy even if you include capital costs, and they take up way less space than wind farms. For example, one of the largest nuclear power plant sites, the STP nuclear power plants, produces 2500 MW of constant power, and it takes up only a fourth of the area of the acreage of the largest wind power plant. And most of the area on the STP site is the cooling pond and surrounding areas which are protected habitats for many threatened species including the bald eagle.

    The only reason nuclear power from being as big as coal and petroleum, if not bigger, is irrational fear brought about by people who masquerade themselves as green scientist, but are really just jumping on the popularized, uninformed hollywood idea of green energy. If you do not believe me google three mile island and you will see that it was not nearly as bad as you have been led to believe. Multiple epidemiological studies agree that the small release of radiation either had no effect on the population surrounding the reactor or the effect is so small that it is impossible to perceive.

    Also what they do not tell you is that while each turbine is rated at 1.5 MW, that is the max power, but a typical wind turbine produces less than 50% of that on average. Google “wind power plants capacity factor”.

  8. shelby jones says

    I love the idea of a new energy source!!! I think that america and the rest of the world needs a newer energy source that won’t pollute the earth!! call me a tree hugger but i love the wind farms!!! they are saving our planet!!

  9. says

    The power yield of a typical wind farm is between 25 and 50% of installed capacity, some are higher, some a re lower. Be VERY aware with anti wind NIMBY’s posting credible looking write ups on wind power claiming that they do not work, it’s all lies dressed up as fact – the typical way the NIMBY’s mislead people. Atomic power has manifest hidden problems and carbon emissions.

  10. Uncle B says

    I will support Nuclear fission fires when the good folk at Chernobyl return to farm their land, and human error has been eliminated from the face of the earth! Want to see pathetic asshvles struggling to put out a fire they wish they had never started? SEE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319
    Until Nuclear fission-fires are much advanced, and no longer produce waste products I rest my case. As for NIMBY, when the only place he can find a job is with renewable resources he sings an entirely different song! He has always been this way, fickle and malleable by the circumstances of his paycheck, a pain in the ass to developers, but that’s how he makes his living, sometimes. The new BYD GM Chevy “Volt” knock-off, is up and running, batteries wanting charge overnight, or whenever the wind will oblige, and will sell like hotcakes at really low prices in America as soon as GM gets off the pot, admits the EV-1 was its death knell, and the Volt is vaporware, never to see city streets and designed to pump money from the government! The Apetura, and American, or rather, Californian entry is in full production, not waiting for the mighty GM to break ground, but steaming ahead with a very good battery car. Tesla, both the sports model and sedan, have plug-ins ready to dim streetlights with demand, and Wind, Solar, Tidal, Wave, Hydro, and Geothermal the renewables, or “perpetuals” if renewable means nothing to you, await investment and development, already researched and deemed quite capable by our best minds to fill in the gap between our romance with gasoline and the piston engine, and the new realities, turbo-bio-diesel/Electrics with safer plastic and carbon fiber bodies, smaller, faster, short haul machines, for usually two folks at a time, for the cost of an overnight plug-in to solar cells, wind turbines, tidal generators, wave stations, geothermal generators, and ready to go the next day. The SUV’s due to planned obsolescence are gone with GM, and the highways belong to the new electrics, save for the odd transport truck, running on bio-diesel to a bitter end. Watch those train crossings, they’ll be busier now due to cheaper freight rates than trucks can do, and expect intercity bullet trains to take the place of flying or motoring great distances, a thing of the past with the new oil prices and carbon taxes. Plant a garden, just for practice, the financial Derivatives stuff hasn’t hit the fan yet. Brace yourself now.

  11. NDK says

    Bill,
    Do you really think power companies would be building turbines if they are only 50% efficient? Quit being so narrow minded and start thinking that these wind turbines give me a pay check every week, while most people in today’s economy are being laid off.

    • Petey says

      Yes, power companies will build these turbines, despite their inefficiency, if someone else (read: the public sector) subsidizes the revenue that goes unrecognized because of that inefficiency. But power companies are not building wind turbines -and will not build them- if such revenue is not present or compensated through subsidy.

      If these turbines can be made efficient, I am all for them (although IMHO they could be a lot more picturesque). But the folks advocating the construction of these turbines appear to want to have their rhetorical cake and eat it, too. They want to argue on the one hand that these windmills should be built and subsidized despite their inefficiency so that the technology to make them more efficient will be more easily attained. Then when the things are built, they want to ignore the subsidy and argue that the turbines’ mere presence is proof of efficiency and therefore justification for building more. This is the grossest rhetorical disingenuity.

    • Joe says

      NDK,
      The actual amount of output at the wind sites in Wyoming which is one of the best wind resource areas is 42%. This means that even where the wind is more constant than most places, the output is below what the promoters of wind energy will tell you. Also the only reason that most power companies are building wind turbines are because there are a lot of subsities coming from the government( AKA you and I) to try and make them feasible. Otherwise, there would be no development. Another thing to think about is that every one of the turbines you see also use electricty when the wind is not blowing. Most people do not realize this. They must keep the lubricants heated and the computer systems that control the yaw etc. running. The ones in our area use on average, as much as an average household does. Think about where that power comes from. Yep, a coal fired power plant. You need to keep digging and finding out the real truth. Don’t alow yourself to be fooled.

  12. says

    One should always try to be open minded and research each issue before commenting. I am for alternative power sources and I agree with some of the positive issues on wind power. But as I research the wind turbines I find that there are many issues that people seem to over look. It takes tons of fossil fuel elements to produce each wind turbine. They are not made from recyled products. Each unit is manufactured from new material. As we inspect our wind sites we see hundreds of miles of new roads being carved into each area they are placed. We see hundreds of miles of electrical cable being buried, this cable was produced in a fossil fuel plant. We observed hundreds of fossil fuel burning cement trucks haul thousands of cubic yards of concrete to pour around miles of steel rebar both made in mfg. plants. It takes hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel to ship, construct the site and erect these units. The unit cost of each turbine is in the single digit millions of dollars plus the base, plus the roads, plus the cables plus man power equals a very expensive source of power. Kw cost factors in the Pacific Northwest for electrical cooperatives two years ago was in the vacinity of: hydro = 3-5 cents per Kw, methane landfill powered = 12 – 18 cents per Kw, wind turbines = 23 – 27 cents per Kw. Another issue is the electrical grid that is having to be constructed to handle all of the different wind turbine locations. This has a positive aspect as our current electrical grid system is very out dated.

    The government is involved thus they are telling the power companies what source of power to buy and what % to buy. This is from a government that does not recognize hydro power as a renewable power source. Also remember that our taxes are subsidizing each wind turbine or these units would not be expanding as rapidly as they are. Another concern is the repair bills in the future.

    As I drive through our large wind farms in the surrounding areas of the Columbia Gorge and near Walla Walla, Wa there have been times when none of the units were moving, no wind. When the wind does not cooperate there is no power created.

    Are these units a good thing? They create good jobs in every aspects of their creation and operation so my comment is “The future will be the telling process”. One last item, you will see an increase in your power bill when the taxpayer subsidies dries up. This is reality of government and big business. Have a blessed day.

    • anonymous researcher says

      Your argument does not hold up about the installation of these wind energy turbines. Anything is possible if enough money and time is spent on it. Cancer research is worth it. The effects of pollution is worth investing in, which in fact will curb the pollution which leads to illness. Remember how long it took Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb? Recycling is not against the realm of possibilities for manufacturing turbines. They can also be installed along highways as a friendly wave to drivers, instead of billboards, and a sign of hope for clean energy and the fact that we are constantly working on improvements to what we already know. Billions have been spent on fossil fuels by those that have a financial interest, as well as lobbyists from those companies. The opportunity cost of not spending as much time and money on alternative hopeful solutions is not unrealistic nor impossible to realize.

  13. R. Rawnsley says

    Investors have devastated hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of pristine desert for windfarms just a few miles south of me (in the Palm Springs, CA area), and more and more are going up all the time. Not only are they ugly and destructive, my power rates are still going up and up. I don’t know who is “making money” or “saving money” on these things, but it sure is not me. Sure, they do not produce CO2, but they guzzle up land like an SUV guzzles up gas. In the name of going “green”, Los Angeles plans to build thousands of these things in the desert along with tearing up hundreds of miles of desert for transmission lines. We won’t see any of that power, either, but we sure will have to look at things and suffer with the destruction they cause to our desert environment. I don’t know what the solution to our energy problems are, but covering our environment with windmills, solar plants, and geothermal installations does not seem all that “environmental”, either. Sure, it’s fine if you live in LA, but then LA doesn’t mind sending their trash and criminals into our desert, either. Anything they don’t want, they just put it here and get away with it.

  14. Michelle says

    Today I drove from Lubbock Texas down to Abilene Texas. The amount of wind turbines along highway 84 is staggering. Some places as far as the eye can see both ways. The beautiful mesas were covered with them. Some turning, some not. Farm land was filled with them with the farm houses being surrounded. I felt a bit sorry for the folks in those houses and hoped they got a bit of money for their new ‘crop’. There is around 78 miles of windmills atleast!

    I guess until they start putting those things all over the city scapes, then the ‘green’ folks with want them. Never mind all the human ‘footprints’ now all over those beautiful mesas and the wildlife affected.

    I wondered how much energy they actually put out. I looked into getting one for my home (smaller scale) but found out the cost far outweighed any savings in the next 10 years.

  15. Anonymous says

    The issue at hand when dealing with renewables like solar and wind is that by and large people are very myopic. You look at the financials this year and see a huge investment in something that doesn’t seem to generate a lot of money for the amount of power it produces. But think about over the next twenty years. Americans, especially, are crippled by shortsightedness and the need to have things here and now. In the long run, renewables pay off HUGE. The environment is largely untouched, except for building the actual machinery.

    Your counterpoints: the windmill looks so ugly! Guess what? A coal plant looks f’ing ugly, too. And it belches death into the air. And a coal mine looks even uglier. And it destroys the environment far more than a windmill.

    Another counterpoint: what about all those workers at the coal mine who lose their jobs! Other forms of energy (solar, wind, hydro, etc.) all require people to work, also. And these other forms also require a higher level of education. So the incentive is for people to go back to school and learn more. And, on top of that, all those coal workers who are subjected to piss poor working conditions, the burdens of unionized labor, and horrible wages now can live a healthier lifestyle, go back to school, and find better jobs.

    • says

      Anonymous wrote: “Your counterpoints: the windmill looks so ugly! Guess what? A coal plant looks f’ing ugly, too. And it belches death into the air. And a coal mine looks even uglier. And it destroys the environment far more than a windmill. ”

      That same specious argument is used to justify ANWR drilling, with the claim that the total “footprint” is “only 2,000 acres.” It ignores the spiderweb effect of all the land in between, plus all the access roads. It’s like saying you can build a scattered subdivision over a huge area and still call it wilderness. It just doesn’t work that way.

      Horse Hollow covers 47,000 acres, which is 73 square miles, or a rectangle 7.3 miles by 10 miles. Show me another type of plant that remotely comes close to using that amount of land. Again, it’s total coverage per megawatt, not just specific spots where the towers reside. A lot of “green” hypocrites would scream if an oil well farm covered that much area. And oil rigs are destined for removal when the wells go dry. Wind turbines just sit there in permablight status.

      Mindlessly chasing wind because of greenhouse gas reductions is a poor quality-of-life trade off. Nuclear and solar (ideally on existing rooftops) makes a lot more economic and aesthetic sense.

      • MorinMoss says

        The plus for wind farms is that when to come to end of life the decomm should be fairly easy. The concrete base can be left in the ground, most of the tower is recyclable as is the motor and (probably) the blades.
        I don’t think they should be left to rust once their useful life is past – that’s easily changed by legislation.

  16. says

    That’s 47,000 acres (73 square miles!) that used to be relatively scenic and is now an industrial park. Many roads had to be cut into that land to service the towers.

    I pity America’s remaining open space that isn’t protected and exists in high-rated wind zones. Wind power has the potential to ruin the old frontier, or the semblance of one that still inspires imaginations. People have to clutter every possible acre with themselves, homes, roads, cattle and chattel. When will it stop?

    Those who argue against turbines strictly on economic terms need to get souls. This is the most visually-destructive form of energy per megawatt ever invented. Huge solar arrays aren’t so great either, but they have a much lower profile. We should put all this wind fervor into making nuclear safer, since it has much greater energy density.

    Of course, we must never ask people (worldwide) to use more birth control to stabilize population size and energy demand, thus reducing the need for these “green” scars in the first place. Yeah, let’s avoid common sense and just build, build, build. It “creates jobs” after all; slaves to the mindless mantra of growth. You can often spot bad environmental policy by the increase in construction jobs it creates.

    • nobody says

      as a person who previously worked at the Horse Hollow wind farm (2006-2008) i can tell you that the land is not 73 square miles of “Industrial Park”. It’s farm land. There were cows and crops there far before there were wind turbines. There are still just as many cows and crops there now minus the relatively small footprint of the wind turbines. Most of the wind turbines are directly off the ranchers access roads so not much was put in as far as access roads are concerned. Anyone who has not been on a wind farm has no idea what they’re talking about when they start opening their mouths about wind farms.

  17. Judi J says

    I live near Horse Hollow Wind Farm and yes it has helped our local economy, but I also have to wonder just how cost efficient they really are when over 100 of them are needing the F engines per unit replaced or repaired. That is yes, 400 engines leaking oil inside those massive towers. Electric engines require electricity to run, and I have never heard just how much of the energy produced by each wind turbine is used to run it.

    • Anonymous says

      Because the likes of *you* couldn’t be bothered to read to the end of the line where you saw “291″.

  18. s.m says

    is it still the largest one? can you give me more information about wind energy please. and what is an interesting similarity between off land and on land.

    thank you

  19. Uncle B says

    Wind is King! Now that the oil is drying up what other choices do Americans have? We must convert from liquid energies to Electrical energy at any rate! We have, Solar,Wind, Wave, Tidal, Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear – all translate into Electric Power! None can be converted to liquid fuels! All are clean and perpetual, save for nuclear! When was the last time you heard of refueling the Hoover Dam? Coal is still a great contender, and always will be, because America has its own coal in the ground! All of these will be suppressed by the oil barons – look what they did to the electric car the EV-1! Google, torrent, the movie “Who Stole The Electric Car” and get a free lesson on corporate power in America! The same folks that killed the electric car are fighting new energy sources because they see the writing on the wall! Liquid fuels are dead! Foreign oil imports keep America broke! America has no oil left in the ground! Time for Change!

  20. Danisandor44 says

    I would not want my own wind turbine farm!! I did some research, and saw that the turbines make an awful whole lot of noise. And also it kills birds. But besides those, I don’t think there is any other enviorment hazard problems with it.

  21. lin says

    look up SPPI and read the article on the real cost of windturbines. It’s a very long study and probably more than most ‘green freaks’ are willing to read but worth the time. Our tax dollars by the billions are going to subsidize these wind farms. Our cost for electricity has already gone up because power companies are forced to buy electricity from them at a higher cost per kw. Worse most equipment is built overseas not by US citizens. And by the way-the US has the largest oil reserves in THE WORLD and over 200 years of coal.

    • DarkMan says

      Your billions of tax dollars have been given away to profitable oil companies, spent on wars to keep the oil flowing and to subsidize coal mining that’s destroying landscape and mountains and poisoning rivers.

  22. vikram says

    would installing a solar farm in an existing wind farm be sensible and practical, so the land space below can be utilized. Will the solar farm function effeciently. Would love to hear any ideas on this

  23. Uncle B says

    Look forward for the day in America where lifestyle changes and better, more efficient electricity uses, including good cheap LED’s replace the current technologies, philosophies, and America, through conversion form foreign liquid energy economy, to a domestic electric based economy, flourishes once again as a world example of how to do things correctly! Even our doctors cry for dietary change, our economy for energy change, our daughters, one in four between ages 13 and 18 with STD’s cry for social change! A new, improved model is in order for the average American, who’s schools rate only 32nd in the world by admission of our own Pre4sident – For Shame! The richest country, the freest country in the world, the best fed of all world populations and wityh the worlds best doctors, yet we fail miserably socially and are not sustainable? The glorious days of chrome tipped wings on cars and smoke-stacks everywher are gone, and we enter a new age, of environmental responsibility, sustainability, and responsible living! Can Americans make it, that is the Question. Use CFL’s LED’s and Hybrid cars, and insulate for cheaper heating and cooling nation wide and make change happen! Make America great once again!

  24. Anonymous says

    哪位朋友能帮我找找日本的三菱见机在哪个风电厂安装?怎么联系?

  25. Anonymous says

    If u havnt been to a turbine site( most of u havnt) u wouldn’t know how noisy, or how many birds they kill!! There is very little sound (unless directly under the turbine running). Not once have I seen a bird die, from a running turbine!? Don’t believe every thing u read.

  26. Yeeeech says

    The health impacts of wind farms is astounding. If they are sited 1.5 miles from homes okay, otherwise the infrasound is deafening at over 60 decibels for the mega turbines which are 428 feet tall. And, opps, don’t expect to save money on wind generated power, it costs 2x that of coal, hydro-electric, biomass or oil…..and of course nuclear. The latest stimulus bill is giving investors a 90% accelerated (3 year) write off if they build a wind farm next year. Nice, huh?

    • DarkMan says

      60 decibels is approx the loudness of everyday conversation. The cost per MW of wind energy is competitive with most other forms of power generation and cheaper than nuclear. It’s also the quickest to get up and running – once the power lines and controls are in, you can start generating electricity even if all the towers aren’t complete. There are issues with intermittency and lower capacity factor but that’s manageable in a modern grid when the %age power from wind is below about 10-15%, without requiring any significant energy storage.

  27. Attempting Green Mama says

    Very interesting opinions posted here. Just a thought though. How much water does a wind plant use? How much water does a coal plant use? How much water does a nuclear plant use? Hmm. I like water, and I hear we are running a little low. But that is just one minor part of this argument.
    Is there such a thing as a beautiful energy facility? I have never seen one, but I guess I prefer a wind turbine over a belching fossil fuel plant. The area of a wind plant may be vast, but the actual portion of land that is directly affected is only about 10 to 20%. The rest is un touched or farmed as usual.
    I know what opinions are like and everyone is entitled, but I feel like we should weigh our options more objectively and take into consideration our great-grand children, less resources consumed and less waste produced, please.
    We need a combination of energy sources to effectively run our power grid and supply our demand, as well as reduce our cost. That means coal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc, all working together. It requires back-ups, or a ‘diversified electric portfolio’. And our energy demand is ever increasing, I would rather see a new wind farm then a new coal plant, or even worse a new coal mine. Or even worse a new war on oil, or I mean terror? But in any case, that is my opinion.
    Lets be honest, no matter which direction we face, or which opinion we support, we are hurting mother earth and depleting our resources. I am a practicing hypocrite. But I am trying and I am not giving up! Be open, think future!

    -We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive. ~Aldo Leopold

  28. Uncle B says

    Chinese designed, Thorium fueled LFTR reactors will become the ultimate electrical power source for the Pan-Eur-Asian Empire, now spreading by highways, by electric bullet train networks daisy-chained Pan-Eurasia as we speak. Fact: LFTR reactors cost X 10 less than American designs to build. Thorium fuel is much more plentiful, much cheaper, much easier to mine, process, than Uranium fuel for American designed reactors. LFTR reactor waste products safe, benign after only 300 years of storage. LFTR reactors produce no humanocidal plutonium. LFTR reactors operate at low pressures, temperatures – require no pressure dome at all. Google LFTR reactors, see for yourself! Also: Google Tsinghua University, China, pebble bed, gas reactors – see how far ahead they really are! American designed reactors responsible for Fuckoshima, even at this late date, meat there has been declared unsafe for human consumption due to radio-active contamination still leaking from the disabled reactors. Even Nissan motors moves to China as we speak. nuclear disaster not over, in fact, just starting. Fish from nearby oceans also inedible, not exportable. Canada plans Chinese LFTR reactors for Tar Sands Oil extraction as we speak.

    • DarkMan says

      Please loosen your tinfoil hat – it’s too tightly wrapped. LFTR is still pretty much an experimental reactor; even the one small built at ORNL never actually ran on thorium.
      It has potential but it’ll 10 years before ( if ever) it gets out of the experimental stage and another 10-15 yrs before mass deployment can begin. If it works out AND if it lives up to the hype, it’ll be 30 years before it starts to become commonplace anywhere INCL China.
      Do you want us to run on nothing but coal until then?

  29. Uncle B says

    Google LFTR reactors. you will find I am not alone in my Thorium/LFTR obsession. China has already ran CANDU reactors on Thorium. Google Tsinghua University, China pebble bed gas reactor – see how far they have come in only decades in reactor technologies. Be reminded that U.S.S.R. nuclear technologies migrated freely to communist China. Realize that China selects the very brightest of an immense Asian gene pool, educates them and sets them to the task of developing Thorium fueled, LIFTR reactors, this is something the U.S. cannot do. They have a smaller gene pool to work with, they are broke, and come “hat in hand” for loans from China as it is.
    Faulty American designs are so dated! Even France has made advances in reactor designs, over and above the 1950′s styled American systems.

    • DarkMan says

      I’m well aware of Thorium / LFTR, having seen several presentations on the subject by Kirk Sorenson and others. I’ve also check his Energy from Thorium blog regularly. China has only recently decided to go the MSR route but notice that the timeline is 20 yrs. Do you think they’ll not build another wind turbine, coal plant, conventional nuke plant or solar farm for the next 2 decades?
      NO! They’ll build some of everything – as should we, except for coal. I do agree that more advanced nuke plants should be built and the US has to start reprocessing. Using only a tiny %age of the uranium potential is blindingly STUPID.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>