cyprusgrump wrote:georgios100 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:georgios100 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:georgios100 wrote:Mr cyprusgrump is in favor of nuclear energy in Cyprus yet he is posting wind turbine failures... I ask you this;
Your proposed nuclear plant is out of the question. Simply, if an accident like Chernobil happens, well, the whole island would be abandoned for the next 300 years... thousands may die... check out this link.
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/c ... meset.html
A sad reminder.
Georgios100
Very sad...
Should we let an accident such as that determine our energy plans for generations to come tho...?
Cyprus could do with some of these.
Your proposal in a nutshell (copy from link)
Hyperion Power’s Mini Power Reactor, is a liquid metal-cooled fast reactor, and offers unique safety
features and efficiency. Housed in a permanently sealed container just 1.5 meters wide by 2.5 meters
tall, it’s small enough to be transported by truck, rail or ship. Meeting all the non-proliferation criteria
of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), each unit produces 70 megawatts of thermal energy
or 25 megawatts of electric power— enough to provide electricity for 20,000 average American-size
homes or the industrial equivalent for seven to ten years depending on usage.
Offering a cost-efficient source of clean, emission-free, baseload energy, the Hyperion Power Module
will provide crucial independent power for military installations; heat, steam, and electricity for mining
operations; and electricity for local infrastructure and clean water processes in communities around the
globe.
These are small scale units. 6 units to equal the wind farm being installed in Cyprus as we speak. Unit lifetime 7 years. Cost unknown. Disposal of "expired" units (cost & location) unknown.
Nuclear powered units (in multiples) have a greater chance of failure. Cyprus does not have a remote location to place these units for security reasons. I would think the units are suitable for mining installations, military outposts, remote transmission towers/antennas etc. Not suited for high dence build-up areas like Cyprus.
Still, nuclear power is considered renewable.
Georgios100
So forty-one windmills must also have a 'greater chance of failure' then...?
Plus, they only produce power when windy requiring back-up generation capability for calm days...?
You are right. I would say the windmills are a "compliment" to the existing power plants and may contribute a modest 10% of the electricity demand of the island.
Whatever man made equipment you refer to (including windmills), all eventually break down. The same goes for conventional coal/diesel power plants. Windmills by comparison have less maintenance due to less moving parts and, less wear/tear (when wind is not present). Windmills get a break if no wind is there... other power plants are continuous duty, so failures occur more.
From now on, windy days mean a lot more to us. More "free" energy and hopefully, over time, lower electricity bills to pay. Blow baby blow...
Georgios100
I can see how that would work in a large power system (Canada or America) with many hundreds or thousands of power plants... on windy days you would be able to shut down the lest efficient plants and benefit from 'free' wind energy...
I can't see it working in a smaller model like Cyprus tho... surely we have to build 110% 'conventional' generating capacity to allow us to benefit from 'free' wind energy...?
We can't have 90% 'conventional' generating and 10% wind as we'd obviously have to shut down 10% of the island on non-windy days...
This is classic 'one size fits all' EU rule making which will eventually cost Cypriots extra in their fuel bills to meet EU quotas and benefit from 'free' wind power...
There has been a house built not 100m from my home by a large, well known builder in Cyprus. It has just been finished... the house has no insulation of any form (apart from 'double-glazed' windows). This is 2010 yet we are still building homes that will require air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter in a climate where neither should really be necessary...
I personally think the millions spent on the wind farm to meet some EU rule would have been better spent insulating homes, making sure that new homes are energy efficient and perhaps fitting PV panels to all apartment buildings...
I agree with you. Either it's wind power, solar power or other renewable, the RoC should look into changing the building code to conserve energy. It is well understood, the future is renewable energy but in combination with energy conservation in line. So far, wind power is the most preferred tool when facing depleting oil supplies. Solar is inefficient and very expensive (large applications).
On the contrary, If Cyprus, being small, could upgrade to 30% wind power, the savings can be significant. For USA & Canada, the current wind farms are a drop in the ocean, considering the power demand of these countries.
The EU has it's rules. USA, Canada etc are not affected by these rules and yet, wind farms are exploding all over. Wind power is not a bad idea, only the politics behind are.
Georgios100
