Cyprus-Forum.com

[kurupetos]

I bet Georgie boy makes a lot of money selling his wind power equipment.

So yes! There is a big profit...for the seller!

BTW, earlier this week, I was happy to find out Uni. of Cyprus has initiated nuclear power research!

Dr. K will soon repatriate. A new era has begun!

Actually I own a small renewable energy company as a side job. I assume you liked my solar hot water system configuration.
I major in architectural millwork, specialized in medical institutions and research labs.
All these activities in Canada and the Dominican Republic. Don't have any businesses in Cyprus, no profits from you guys.

Cyprus initiated nuclear R&D? Sounds like re-inventing the wheel to me!

A good field to research is floating solar panel arrays on water dams. Reasons to do so?

1. Much higher efficiency when the solar panels are cooled from the bottom up (up to 30% increased production).
2. No precious land occupied, panels float 24 inches above the water.
3. Unobstructed sunlight exposure directly to the panels (no trees, hills, buildings etc)
4. Sun rays blocked by panel arrays resulting in reduced water evaporation losses of the dam water.
5. Security from thieves & vandalism (panels can only be reached by boat).
6. This approach could be a major attraction for Cyprus as the first country to have such an application.

Food for though perhaps?

Maybe, but there is a lot of ongoing high level research on Energy at the Cyprus Institute. Have a look here:
http://www.cyi.ac.cy/research/projects

[cyprusgrump]

[cyprusgrump]

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

[kurupetos]

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

Excellent post grump. I will need it in the future, while I promote Nuclear Power.

Here's a follow-up link...

Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1q8HZ1TWX

[georgios100]

Wind turbines have a lifetime of 15-20 years. Just like cars, old machinery etc.
Some turbines are dismantled as scrap metal while others are refurbished and sold to third world countries.
The site is clean, ready for other uses like agriculture or parks.
Decommissioning a wind farm is as easy as child's play compared to coal or nuclear power plants.

On the other hand, huge problems arise when decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The following is an example taken from the UK situation. Read on folks. This is truly a sad case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
A wide range of nuclear facilities has been decommissioned so far. This includes nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors, isotope production plants, particle accelerators, and uranium mines. The number of decommissioned power plants is small. There are companies specialized in nuclear decommissioning; the practice of decommissioning has turned into a profitable business. Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame.

Comments, anyone?

[georgios100]

Thorpe Marsh Power Station. Junk littering the landscape. Old abandoned UK power plants are scattered all over Britain.
Who is going to clean up this mess?

[georgios100]

How about this one?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... trend.html


UK's carbon-capture failure is part of a global trend

Whatever happened to clean coal? A global push to develop technology for capturing and burying carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants is faltering as governments and business bicker over who should pay R&D costs, and hopes recede that a global carbon market will pay for future operations. Public opposition is also growing.

The latest victim is a British scheme at Longannet, Europe's third-largest coal-fired power station. British ministers last week abandoned the scheme - which won a government funding competition initiated four years ago - because it would have cost too much. The government would not increase its £1 billion offer to pay the additional £562 million which industry collaborators Scottish Power and Shell wanted as contingency. The government says its money was still on offer for any alternative scheme.

The UK's abandonment of the Longannet project reflects a growing global trend. At an industry meeting on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Beijing, China, last month, the Global CCS Institute, which monitors the nascent industry, said that five projects had been called off in the US and Europe in the past year. Most surviving schemes are associated with fossil-fuel drilling sites – not power plants – and have as their main purpose using CO2 to flush oil and gas out of old wells, the institute said, rather than curbing CO2 emissions. Only two CCS plants are currently under construction at power stations: one in Mississippi and one in Canada.

[cyprusgrump]

Thorpe Marsh Power Station. Junk littering the landscape. Old abandoned UK power plants are scattered all over Britain.
Who is going to clean up this mess?

It produced electricity for 29 years - reliably, not just 30% of the time.

And now they are going to build a Combined cycle plant on the same site... What is your point...?

[cyprusgrump]

How about this one?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... trend.html


UK's carbon-capture failure is part of a global trend

Whatever happened to clean coal? A global push to develop technology for capturing and burying carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants is faltering as governments and business bicker over who should pay R&D costs, and hopes recede that a global carbon market will pay for future operations. Public opposition is also growing.

The latest victim is a British scheme at Longannet, Europe's third-largest coal-fired power station. British ministers last week abandoned the scheme - which won a government funding competition initiated four years ago - because it would have cost too much. The government would not increase its £1 billion offer to pay the additional £562 million which industry collaborators Scottish Power and Shell wanted as contingency. The government says its money was still on offer for any alternative scheme.

The UK's abandonment of the Longannet project reflects a growing global trend. At an industry meeting on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Beijing, China, last month, the Global CCS Institute, which monitors the nascent industry, said that five projects had been called off in the US and Europe in the past year. Most surviving schemes are associated with fossil-fuel drilling sites – not power plants – and have as their main purpose using CO2 to flush oil and gas out of old wells, the institute said, rather than curbing CO2 emissions. Only two CCS plants are currently under construction at power stations: one in Mississippi and one in Canada.

CCS is a ridiculous idea...

It always was and like wind, nobody would build it without huge incentives from the poor taxpayer...

But I wouldn't believe anything that The New Scientist prints any more - sadly it has become nothing more than a propaganda rag for control freaks...

[cyprusgrump]

Wind turbines have a lifetime of 15-20 years. Just like cars, old machinery etc.
Some turbines are dismantled as scrap metal while others are refurbished and sold to third world countries.
The site is clean, ready for other uses like agriculture or parks.
Decommissioning a wind farm is as easy as child's play compared to coal or nuclear power plants.

On the other hand, huge problems arise when decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The following is an example taken from the UK situation. Read on folks. This is truly a sad case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
A wide range of nuclear facilities has been decommissioned so far. This includes nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors, isotope production plants, particle accelerators, and uranium mines. The number of decommissioned power plants is small. There are companies specialized in nuclear decommissioning; the practice of decommissioning has turned into a profitable business. Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame.

Comments, anyone?

Well, we'll need something to produce power on still days...