One powered the US's second nuclear sub, USS Seawolf (SSN 575).So what?
Are we utterly incapable of building them?
Oak Ridge had one years
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One powered the US's second nuclear sub, USS Seawolf (SSN 575).So what?
Are we utterly incapable of building them?
Oak Ridge had one years
The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2The scientist calculated that, at 100 percent efficiency, if the wind blows at 10 meters per second (about 22 mph), the power is 600 watts per square meter. Hence, to deliver 3,200 million watts, the same output as Hinkley Point C—a planned zero-carbon nuclear power station in England—there would need to be 5.5 million square meters of turbine swept area.
I support nuclear power so I would probably prefer that to the turbines if this plant can be brought online in a satisfactory amount of time.The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2
To sweep 5.5 million square meters would then require 5,500,000 / 38.013 or 145 turbines.
On a rated power capacity basis (20 MW/turbine) it would actually require 160 turbines.
I answeredWhat? I asked a question.
What White6 said does not equate to what you have asked. So, his answer should be "No, I do not".so you admit one loses funding for being honest huh?
So you think you speak for me you condescending prick?What White6 said does not equate to what you have asked. So, his answer should be "No, I do not".
I answered
Cut your losses, good idea. I will continue to comment however on yours.
Fwiw, I meant to say aren't.You don't understand munchkin and when you act like a pompous little prick, nobody wants to be bothered explaining anything to you.
No, wind and solar are the whole answer and neither are EV's.
Speak for you? I was speaking for him. What was your question about funding? Are you getting a little tight. The market has not been kind the last year or so. They miss Donny boy.So you think you speak for me you condescending prick?
Answer my question about funding
So you jumped in blindSpeak for you? I was speaking for him. What was your question about funding? Are you getting a little tight. The market has not been kind the last year or so. They miss Donny boy.
PS, it's not condescension if it's actually required.
This is a test, it is only a test. If this were a real post you would have been alerted to applaud wildly.So you jumped in blind
to which you failed badly, thank you for participating.This is a test, it is only a test. If this were a real post you would have been alerted to applaud wildly.
When I saw the NA there, I thought perhaps you'd been booted for your incessant trolling.to which you failed badly, thank you for participating.
all unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2
To sweep 5.5 million square meters would then require 5,500,000 / 38.013 or 145 turbines.
On a rated power capacity basis (20 MW/turbine) it would actually require 160 turbines.
all unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.
I've been waiting since you asked him.Ask him about dispatchable power.
Todd already explained it to me.I've been waiting since you asked him.
That says nothing about my argument. It (the number of wind turbines required) was presented as an unreachable goal, when, in fact, it is quite reachable, though I stated that if a lot of permitting and prep work was done, I'd go with the nuke plant. I have no objection to modern nuclear power plantsall unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.
Are they dependable 7x24x365? You just pukedThat says nothing about my argument. It (the number of wind turbines required) was presented as an unreachable goal, when, in fact, it is quite reachable, though I stated that if a lot of permitting and prep work was done, I'd go with the nuke plant. I have no objection to modern nuclear power plants