Turbines no match for nuclear

When asked if he feels Mid Wales has more than its fair share of wind turbines Rhodri Morgan's response was "Would you rather have nuclear power stations?"

This got me thinking. Rhodri's throwaway remark almost suggests he thinks turbines are a substitute for nuclear power. I'm sure that many people would love to think that.

So if you were to replace an average nuclear power station by wind turbines, how many turbines would you need? What sort of wind farm would that look like?

An average nuclear power station, say Hartlepool, has a capacity of 1,190 megawatts, and delivers 825MW

(Dukes 2007). A wind turbine rated at 2MW delivers 0.6MW (British Wind Association) so 1,375 turbines would equal Hartlepool.

Mynydd Waun Fawr needs 479 hectares for 16 2MW turbines, at an area of 30Ha per turbine and 1,375 turbines would occupy an area of 41,300Ha, which is 413 square kilometres or 160 square miles.

Imagine a windfarm stretching along the road from Chester to Cardiff (via Builth), one mile wide (as wide as the Severn valley at Welshpool).

Hartlepool contributes about one twelfth of nuclear power, so twelve of those wind farms should do the trick - when the wind is blowing.

Nuclear power contributes just less than 20 per cent of our total electricity production. Joking aside, if Rhodri's advisors are mis-informing him on windpower to this extent it is no wonder that TAN 8 enjoys such an unquestioned position.

Get real Rhodri!

Steve Wood, Powys