🚀 go-pugleaf

This is really funny. Now at 0100 GMT on Jan, 7 i found Tom Gray�s 
posting from Jan, 4, that I have already replied to. Just in case I 
repeat my reply here:

tomgray <tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
-snip to make the reprisal short-
>
>I think it is most unlikely that all the wind turbines that might
>offset a nuclear power plant would be installed at one location.
Of course! You are quite right but that also shows how
difficult it is to view wind power as a substitute to nuclear
power instead of a complimentary asset. If you on the other
hand want to have wind power INSTEAD OF nuclear power, then
you MUST make these comparisons. If we in Sweden for instance
would try to substitute the Ringhals NPP with wind power we
would have to fill the west coast from the Norwegian border
to the south coast with 15 lines of 500 kW wind power plants.
 
>As you know, there are thousands of turbines installed in Denmark,
>which is generally considered to be a highly environmentally
>conscious country.
In that "environmentally conscius" country 97% of the electric
energy is fossil, mostly coal power. In our region the wind
is nearly constantly coming from the west, so it is southern
Sweden who has to take the consequences of that! And yet the
Danes demand that Barsebek NPP should be closed and they also
demand a guarantee sum from Sweden for potential damages in
Denmark from a nuclear accident in Sweden.
But when the plant was built in the 70�s the Danes took part
in all planning and location for the NPP.

Hans Pedersen Dambo

-- 
http://www.sbbs.se/com/home/dambo/
http://www.sbbs.se/com/home/dambo/enp.html
http://www.sbbs.se/com/home/dambo/mfk.html