Scout Moor Wind Farm

[Teratornis]

According to the Wikipedia article on Scout Moor, the average output is 154 GWh per year (capacity factor 27%). For comparison, the Sizewell B nuclear reactor produced 8.7 TWh in 2005. Thus it would take about 8700/154=56.5 Scout Moors to equal the average output of one large nuclear power plant like Sizewell B. Or two and half London Arrays.

Time to get building.

[windpowerrocks]

Ah yes, but what was the capacity factor of Sizewell B over the same period? I'd heard that one nuclear power station, and I think it was Sizewell B, has had a lot of shutdowns recently. This might mean halving your turbine number estimation.

Other than that, it's not a bad calculation, but I'd have to check all the figures.

Let's also keep in mind, that there's only enough Uranium for one more generation of nuclear power stations. After that, we still need alternatives.

Sorry for slow reply

[scruss0]

I spent a lot of time more than a decade ago squelching about taking wind measurements on those hills. Glad something's come of it.

[Teratornis]

Given the relatively small size of the U.K., imagine the potential consequences of a nuclear reactor core breach. A large proportion of the country could be rendered uninhabitable for decades. The odds may be low, but the consequences so devastating as to make the expected cost uninsurable. Which is why no private insurer will touch nuclear power. Wind turbines may get some complaints, but they cannot destroy your whole country, and they don't give terrorists much to work with.

[windpowerrocks]

Indeed. Then there's the waste - radioactive for thousands of years with no proven long-term disposal method. Managed storage for thousands of years? Hmmm... might that be a bit expensive? Then of course, we're going to run out of uranium in a few decades anyway so we'll have to come back to alternatives.