Nuclear Power

SeanW

There was a BBC documentary on the Chernobyl accident, the lead up to the accident, and the immediate aftermath. Maybe the Beebs sell it on DVD or make it available on request I don't know, but it's on P2P if anyone's in that game.

"Days that shook the world" it's called.

It should be required viewing for this debate IMO as it clarifies the who/what/when/why/how of the Chernobyl accident, and, depending on how you view it, how it could almost never happen again outside the communist world with non-Soviet designs.

The more I think about nuclear vs. fossil fuel, the more I'm starting to think we should actively plan for a nuclear plant here even if it's never needed/done. We could at least get French consultants in to commission a report on the options.

We depend so much on natural gas for electricity it's pure madness. Every ton of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere does irreperable damage to the entire planet, and I've always felt we need to do everything in our power to slow down or stop carbon emissions. That, I'm starting to believe, includes nuclear power.

I wonder what kind of uranium resources Ireland has?

ressem

There have been two major accidents, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (partial meltdown), only Chernobyl caused deaths, Three Mile Island caused no deaths and only leaked a very insignificant amount of radioactive material (about equal to a chest X-Ray).

A little worse than that,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale

A worker dying, e.g. at one of the brazillian reactors is among the reasons to give an incident 4 or higher.

Greenpeace list a few more accidents/issues most of which are trivial
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reactor/calendar/java/javacal.html

In contrast
China averages about 1400 deaths a year from coal mining.

bk

ressem wrote:

A little worse than that,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale

That is interesting

ressem wrote:

A worker dying, e.g. at one of the brazillian reactors is among the reasons to give an incident 4 or higher.

While it is awful that anyone dies in an accident, how many people die in industrial accidents in Ireland every year?

ressem wrote:

Greenpeace list a few more accidents/issues most of which are trivial
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reactor/calendar/java/javacal.html

This is exactly the type of FUD that I hate. They claim Nuclear is dirty, uneconomical and dangerous without giving any scientific backing to their claims. They then give a big calendar of supposed nuclear accidents, the majority of which are incredibly trivial.

You know I still haven't made up my mind about Nuclear power, but it is exactly this kind of FUD that repulses me from the anti-nuclear side and makes the clear logical explanations with scientific backing from the pro-nuclear side look far more attractive to me.

New_Departure06

If the govt can't even get the Corrib gas-pipeline through just imagine the huge rumpus trying to build a nuclear plant will cause.

civdef

Yep, right now it'd be political suicide to try to push it through. All parties recognise this, witness Bertie's strong rejection of nuclear power at the Engineers Ireland conference.

If oil prices increase like some are saying they will, this may alter the playing field.

ressem

Reports by the pro nuc side argue that the "economically catastrophic" performance of commercial nuc plants in the US is largely down to political interference, construction stoppages due to legal challenges regardless of merit.

All issues that such a project in Ireland would be buried to the eyebrows in.


http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/Essay050120%20Zalenski%20-%20Future%20of%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf

In the U.S., the development of the nuclear
program, which took place mostly between the end of the 1960s and the
beginning of the 1980s (the last nuclear plant order that was not cancelled was in
1973), was economically catastrophic, as shown during a French-U.S. seminar
comparing implementation of the two countries' nuclear programs in 1985 (see
Ref. 3). In particular, the length of construction went from 63-66 months at the
beginning (1967), to 142-158 months estimated in 1980. The total cost of an
installed kilowatt electric, according to the energy economics data base of the
U.S. Department of Energy, increased by an average 15% per year above
inflation, leading to a value of $1,500 per kW (in 1988 dollars) for a plant which
started in construction in 1978, and $3,192 per kW (in 1992 dollars) for a plant
which started in construction in 1998 (Ref. 3a).

bonkey

ressem wrote:

Reports by the pro nuc side argue that the "economically catastrophic" performance of commercial nuc plants in the US is largely down to political interference,

I read this and thought...

Damn those politicians for stepping in and insisting on expensive minimum quality levels and whatnot. They should have let the industry self-regulate and everyone would be much happier. They'd all have a nice, warm, happy glow about them.

bk

bonkey wrote:

I read this and thought...

Damn those politicians for stepping in and insisting on expensive minimum quality levels and whatnot. They should have let the industry self-regulate and everyone would be much happier. They'd all have a nice, warm, happy glow about them.

In fairness, it is probably more to do with NIMBYism and politicians pandering to the unfounded and uninformed fears of the general public.

bk

Here is the reality.

- We do use Nuclear power now, we get it from the UK and France.

- In the future even more of our power will come from Nuclear as it seems inevitable that the UK and France will be building more Nuclear power plants and most other EU countries will likely follow.

The only question is, will we secure our own power supply or will we continue the Irish tradition of saying we don't want something yet relying on the UK for it (abortion, air defence, etc.)?

SeanW

Just to put the whole issue of Nuclear Power, and Chernobyl, into context, consider:

It takes just 2.2 pounds of uranium to produce the same amount of electricity as 3000 tons of coal. That's a lot of carbon dioxide emission savings if we grab the bull by the horns. Source. Does anyone know what this means in terms of (Mega)Watts?

But Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen in just about every way imagineable, including the vast levels of nuclear fuel, which seem to be far in excess of its daily requirements.

As to what exactly was being stored in Chernobyl that day, there seem to be 2 general versions on the Internet of Reactor 4s nuclear inventory. This one Gives an estimate of what was on site and what was released. Other estimates more simplistically suggest that 180-200 tons of Uranium remains on site, as does 1 ton of radionuclides mainly plutonium.

In the case of Chernobyl, so many things wen't wrong before the accident that it was ... well an accident waiting to happen.

1. The USSR was coming from behind in a race for Nuclear parity with the West
2. They cut many corners in design and safety
3. Their main reactor type was an unstable RBMK design
4. This particular plant was designed by a designer with no experience of nuclear power plants, but plenty of ego
5. The construction of the Chernobyl plant was plagued by problems especially with concrete and cement deliveries, in both quality and schedule.
6. The plant director was pressured by Soviet authorities to bring Reactor 4 online early.
7. There was only one nuclear engineer on the payroll, most of the rest of the staff were trained as electrical engineers only
8. The plant director scheduled the safety test to be run in the daytime of April 25th 1986, when there would be a full staff on standby, and Reactor 4 was due for an annual maintenance shutdown anyway
9. But a regional power station went down, and the Kiev grid controller demanded more output from Chernobyl.
10. Rather than being rescheduled, the test was left to the nightshift, a skeleton crew of mainly newly trained electrical engineers
11. The test called for the reduction of output to 20-30% but the operator in charge lowered too many control rods into the core, causing an almost total shutdown.
12. Several safety procedures were broken in an attempt to raise output levels. In addition to this, the reactor manuals and documentations had paragraphs crossed out. This caused confusion and the operator phoned an operator at Reactor 3 for advice, upon which they were told to follow the crossed out instructions as the changes had no official stamp.
13. With output levels too low, too many control rods out of the core, and safety systems, including the automatic shutdown, the test is initiated. The staff has its orders ... after all.
14. Within a minute, everything goes to hell, water - used for cooling and neutron absorbtion - evaporates and there are not enough control rods in the reactor to stop a runaway reaction. The reactor reaches 3000% of normal output, overheats, goes into meltdown, and explodes.
15. There is only partial containment on the reactor building for the event of an accident. It is of course, breached by the explosion.
16. There are vast quantities of nuclear material on site, obviously far more than needed for a days power generation. 5-6% of this will be released over the coming 10 days.

If we look at that in the context of a properly run nuclear facility (i.e. what was missing at Chernobyl):
- No race to acheive a nuclear milepost
- Competent national governace
- Safe, robust design.
- Carefully managed construction
- Reactors only put into operation when good and ready
- A clear "safety first" approach to operation, procedures and documentation.
- Compent staff and adequate staffing levels for the activities being undertaken.
- Very strong physical build to resist a crashed jetliner or contain a meltdown.
- Presumably, no more nuclear material held near the core than is absolutley needed.

If Ireland went nuclear, for example, one 500MW facility somewhere, it would not be the end of the world. Quite the contrary, we'd save heaps and heaps of carbon dioxide emissions, which could save the world.

New_Departure06

bk wrote:

Here is the reality.

- We do use Nuclear power now, we get it from the UK and France.

- In the future even more of our power will come from Nuclear as it seems inevitable that the UK and France will be building more Nuclear power plants and most other EU countries will likely follow.

The only question is, will we secure our own power supply or will we continue the Irish tradition of saying we don't want something yet relying on the UK for it (abortion, air defence, etc.)?

You and SeanW don't seem to get it. The main objection people have to nuclear power isn't the principle of it. The main object is the risk of radioactive contamination forcing potentially millions of us to evacuate either part of the country or the country overall. There is hardly anywhere in Belarus that was not contaminated by Chernoybyl. Millions were evacuated because of it. It will take thousands if not millions of years before those contaminated areas will be inhabitable again. No-one wants to buy Belarussian agricultural produce because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to invest in Belarus because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to be a tourist to Belarus because of radioactive contamination. The country is kept afloat by Russian aid.

Do we want to be like that (except for the Russian aid)? And you can say its safe all you like. Maybe it would be possible using the latest technology and rigid safety standards to avoid an accident. But what about the risk of a terrorist attack? We have no intercept capability if a 911 style-collision threatened.

SeanW

Finland just started building a Nuclear power station. It's designed, seemingly, to withstand a jetliner crash. They know what they're doing. At least I hope so.

You keep talking about Chernobyl, even though I've outlined how Chernobyl happened - it was a symptom of the Soviet cancer - which like everything the Soviets did, was marred by incompetence and political interference in the extreme. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen as are/were all the other Soviet RBMK reactors at that time. We're just lucky that it didn't happen more than once.

The main emissions from the Chernobyl accident that are still with us are Cesium 137 and Stronium 90, each with half lives of approx 30 years. It is thought that lands contaminated will be unsafe for at least 600 - possibly 900 years. The reactor itself will probably be a ball and chain around The Ukraine's neck for much longer than that.

If designed, built and run properly, the risks you talk about are negligable. If the big bad terrorist really wanted to get us with radioactivity they could just as easily smuggle in a dirty bomb or their own nuke.

Remember that 6 tons of fuel (5% of total held) were released from Chernobyl, but as I pointed out, only 2.2 pounds of Uranium are required to displace 5000 tons of coal. So there would be no need for an Irish reactor to hold anything even resembling what was held at Chernobyl Reactor 4.

Our main concern in this regard is Sellafield, and the woes they have had with safety and radioactive materials storage over the years have, and may continue, to pose some radioactivity hazards.

piraka

New_Departure06 wrote:

It will take thousands if not millions of years before those contaminated areas will be inhabitable again. No-one wants to buy Belarussian agricultural produce because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to invest in Belarus because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to be a tourist to Belarus because of radioactive contamination. The country is kept afloat by Russian aid

Even with this doomsday scenario, they have decided that nuclear power is central to their energy policy and are building more nuclear power plants, even though they have ready access to European/Russian grid, gas and oil, than Ireland. I wonder why?

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote:

It takes just 2.2 pounds of uranium to produce the same amount of electricity as 3000 tons of coal.

Well it takes a lot of processing to get 2.2 pounds of uranium in usable rod form. Your figure is correct after its processed.

We are at the fag end of whatever european gas grid , if there is a shortage we get it first !!!!!

piraka

New_Departure06 wrote:

Viable alternatives exist. Wind, wave, biomass, biofuels, solar.

Hmmm.... the wind farms are producing less than 50MW today across the entire country. The ESB system demand is over 3500MW.

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/

SeanW

That is the other problem - the development of wind electricity is being held back, by governmental indifference and the ESB monopoly.

Ireland is in a very precarious position re: energy security. We exploit only a miniscule fraction of wind resources, we have no biofuels policy worth talking about, our government spent the last 10 years building motorways almost to the exclusion of public transport development and local authorities have spent the last 40 years approving one one-off-house after another, meaning we will be much more car-dependent than our neighbors for generations. We also rely hugely on Natural Gas for electricity. And we have only one petroleum refinary.

Put simply, we're at the fag end of everything, electrcity, gas, and oil.

That means nuclear, wind, biomass, tidal power, public transport, conservation, whatever, we need to start making decisions NOW while the lights are on and traffic is moving. The last thing we want is to have to go Nuclear when the lights go off ... we don't want that at all.

As for nuclear terrorism, our biggest concern should be the nuke producing powers like North Korea and Pakistan.

The North Korean government is bankrupt, both of finance and of morals. It's only a matter of time before Kim Jong Nutcase sells nukes to the highest bidding terrorist. If he hasn't done it already, that is. Similar story in Pakistan, an Islamic country that's full of Islamofascist nutters. It's probable some of those are in the nuclear program. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinijad: "Israel should be wiped off the map" who claims that their nuke ambitions are peaceful and for energy only. Maybe so, but who can be sure?

If the terrorists really want to give us a nice warm shiny glow badly enough, they'll find a way whether we have a Nuclear Power Plant or not.

bk

New_Departure06 wrote:

You and SeanW don't seem to get it. The main objection people have to nuclear power isn't the principle of it. The main object is the risk of radioactive contamination forcing potentially millions of us to evacuate either part of the country or the country overall. There is hardly anywhere in Belarus that was not contaminated by Chernoybyl. Millions were evacuated because of it. It will take thousands if not millions of years before those contaminated areas will be inhabitable again. No-one wants to buy Belarussian agricultural produce because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to invest in Belarus because of radioactive contamination. No-one wants to be a tourist to Belarus because of radioactive contamination. The country is kept afloat by Russian aid.

And what you keep missing/ignoring is that as we both have explained in excruciating detail is that a Chernobyl type accident cannot and will not happen in a Western reactor.

Millions of people having to evacuate Ireland is plain FUD, it has no basis in reality.

I notice that you haven't actually claimed that anything I've said so far is actually wrong, you just spread FUD instead.

From my research the only real major problems with Nuclear power is how to deal with the Nuclear waste. Though there are some very interesting solutions proposed for this problem.

New_Departure06

piraka wrote:

Hmmm.... the wind farms are producing less than 50MW today across the entire country. The ESB system demand is over 3500MW.

http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/

Then build more windfarms.

And what you keep missing/ignoring is that as we both have explained in excruciating detail is that a Chernobyl type accident cannot and will not happen in a Western reactor.

Three Mile Island.

civdef

How many people were killed / injured as a result of Three Mile Island?

That said, stories like this tend to reduce your faith in all power plant construction:

Bord na Mona loses €2m in peat sales

09 May 2006 12:58
The Chief Executive of Bord na Mona has said the company has already lost €2m in gross peat sales to the ESB after the discovery of a major technical fault in the new West Offaly Power Plant in Co Offaly.

RTÉ News has learned that the new station in Shannonbridge, which was built at a cost of more than €240m, has been closed down after safety concerns were expressed about corrosion in new piping at the plant.

Bord na Mona says that with the power station out of action it will be reviewing employment levels in production in the midlands and cutting back because of very high stock piles of peat that have built up.

Advertisement


RTÉ understands that a Finnish company, Foster Wheeler, which carried out the main building contract for the construction of the two new ESB power stations in Offaly and Longford has been asked to replace piping.

The pipes were replaced after what has been described as 'an unforeseen chemical reaction between peat and fluid in the piping'.

It is also expected that 200 people who are normally employed in seasonal work with Bord na Mona in Blackwater, Derrafadda will also be effected by this technical fault.

RTÉ News understands there is also a problem with corrosion in the Lough Ree Power Plant at Lanesboro in Co Longford but it is not as serious as the Offaly situation at this stage.

fishfoodie

A more complete list of Nuclear incidents http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

I'd post the equivalent one for incidents associated with 'Conventional' power generation (Coal miners, Steel workers, Builders, Drivers etc ) but it might take a bit long to load

The biggest problem with Nuclear Power generation from a safety perspective is the storage of waste, this is continually used by Anti's as a justification for not building new power plants. This however ignores the simple fact that what is preventing safe disposal of the waste is these self same groups. Witness the recent report by the UK commitee responsible for advising the UK Government http://www.corwm.org.uk. They actually spent more time discussing in their summary the merits of shooting HLW into the Sun, than they did placing it in a Deep sea subduction zone !

I'm very much in favour of a diverse Energy stategy, Wind, Wave, Re-Newables, but any study of any substance into these comes to the inevitable conclusion that they can only ever be a minority because they dont provide 24x7x365 power.

bk

New_Departure06 wrote:

Then build more windfarms.

Wind energy is over twice as expensive as coal/nuclear. Most people aren't willing to see their ESB bill more then double.

Also you would need to build literally over 10,000 wind turbines to meet Irelands energy needs and you would still need coal/gas/nuclear plants as wind is a variable energy source and electricity can't be stored at these massive scales.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Three Mile Island.

And tell me, how many people were killed in that accident?

No one was killed, despite the reactor melting down.

That is exactly my point, while an accident can happen at a western plant, it will be contained and dealt with safely (but costly), a Chernobyl type accident can't happen in a Western Plant.

Also there are a whole new generation of Nuclear power plants being built called Pebble Bed Reactors that are passively safe. That means that it is physically impossible * for a melt down to occur and are therefore extremely safe.

* As in the laws of Physics say that a melt down can't occur.

Please do some research before you go spreading FUD.

SeanW

I used to be staunchly anti-Nuclear. But when you think about the problems of Global Warming, do the research into how much energy is made/coal displaced, how Chernobyl happened, look at why the countries affected are STILL building Nuclear Power Plants.

You start to realise that nuclear power is not the horrid-evil-cancer-factory the environmentalists would have you believe. Quite the opposite, by displacing Megatons of coal, a safe nuclear program could protect the planet and reduce our runaway carbon dioxide emissions like a silver bullet.

To those STILL staunchly opposed to Nuclear Power, I say do your research. Google it, track down the BBC documentary I mentioned, about the macabre chain of mistakes that lead to the Chernobyl accident. Think about why countries affected by the Chernobyl disaster are still building nuclear power plants. Compare the fatality rates for nuclear power vis-a-vis coal miner deaths. Think of the destruction we're causeing by burning all that Peat and Natural Gas.

For example, China generates 80% of its electricity from coal (that's a lot of carbon dioxide), and lost 6000 coal miners in mine accidents in 2004. SourceCan anyone seriously tell me that a safely run nuclear programme (with Pebble Bed Rectors) wouldn't beat that by a mile?

Also, look at the Eirgrid Portal again today. It's a calm day today, and Wind Generation MW are in the single figures since 1:45 AM

Boggle

And what you keep missing/ignoring is that as we both have explained in excruciating detail is that a Chernobyl type accident cannot and will not happen in a Western reactor.

Because we are so great???

You don't get it - no system is absolutely foolproof. People design it and people run it. People can destoy it. The problem here is that IF something goes wrong (and you can preach how slight the risk is) then it stays wrong for a long time and has devastating consequences.

Tell me, at the rate these plants are being built, what kind of a supply of Uranium is available? Where do you suggest we dispose of waste? What is the lifetime of a plant?

Basically I don't trust ANYONE enough to let them design and run a nuclear power plant to go next door to my home.

SeanW

Then you need to do some research. Fatal, destructive, Nuclear accidents with damage like Chernopbyl don't just uncerimoniously happen. They need a very long, macabre, chain of mistakes going back to the plants conception. The kind that only happen in old communism.

Pt it this way: If you needed a budget car in the 1980s would you have bought a Lada or a Skoda?

bk

Boggle wrote:

Because we are so great???

Of course not, we are awful, but the French are great at it and they hire out their services to anyone who wants it. I'm sure we would employ the French to design and run it for us.

Boggle wrote:

You don't get it - no system is absolutely foolproof. People design it and people run it. People can destoy it. The problem here is that IF something goes wrong (and you can preach how slight the risk is) then it stays wrong for a long time and has devastating consequences.

If you bothered to do some research you would see the a Pebble Bed Reactor is fool proof. It is a passively safe design. That means if anything goes wrong, including human error, software error, earth quake etc. the reactor automatically shuts down without any intervention. This is due to the laws of physics.

Even Homer Simpson couldn't caused one of these reactors to go critical.

Boggle wrote:

Tell me, at the rate these plants are being built, what kind of a supply of Uranium is available? Where do you suggest we dispose of waste? What is the lifetime of a plant?

Don't know, lots of new PBR in China and India, thankfully.

Uranium supply is not a problem, massive amounts spread around the world and can be reprocessed out of used nuclear waste.

Lifetime is about 50 years.

Boggle wrote:

Basically I don't trust ANYONE enough to let them design and run a nuclear power plant to go next door to my home.

Yet there are dozens just next door in the UK. They are so close that it is irrelevant if we build our own or not, except to our financial health and ability to secure our own power supply.

fishfoodie

Well a quick bit of research yields the FACT that Uranium forms 2 ppm of the earth's crust. So I think we have a wee while to go before we run out. In fact its ~ 1000 times more plentiful than Gold.

While I certainly agree that there are risks associated with Nuclear power, all the actual, real-life, scientifically gathered, statisitically approved analysis says that Nuclear power is the Safest (i.e. Less people die ) form of Energy, this is normalised by kWHr. Unfortunately isnt reflected in public sentiment towards it.

If I were to list things in Ireland today that were a serious risk to health, I personally would be far more worried about things like Water quality & naturally occuring Radon, Nuclear accidents wouldnt make the top 50, its a sad fact that the hype & paranoia around Nuclear power diverts useful resource away from things that actually are threats to health.

oscarBravo

fishfoodie wrote:

While I certainly agree that there are risks associated with Nuclear power, all the actual, real-life, scientifically gathered, statisitically approved analysis says that Nuclear power is the Safest (i.e. Less people die ) form of Energy, this is normalised by kWHr.

Um. How does wind power kill people?

SeanW

He was talking primarily about Coal, I suppose, which killed 6000 people in China alone in 2004.

However, every form of power generation has its problems
1: Solar - massively expensive, silicon panels cost a bundle and probably cost more energy to build than they get back over their lifetime.
2: Wind: Kills birds that fly into the blades. Actually quite a large problem. Wind plant output varies wildly.
3: Hydropower. Stable, but limited to a small number of sites. Requires large scale evacuation of lands to be flooded. Susceptible to earthquake or dam break.
4: Oil and Natural Gas: Limited natural resources, a cause of pollution, a source of Greenhouse gas emissions.
5: Coal: The filthiest substance possible, highly dangerous to mine, causes widespread air pollution and massive carbon dioxide and methane (from mines) emissions.
6: Nuclear. Can cause widespread death and environmental desctruction if its designed, built and run incompetently. Chernobyl, USSR, was the prime example.

On the face of it, it looks like a good windfarms programme, backed by a safe, competent nuclear programme, would be the silver bullet to all our troubles, both security and environmental impact. Its wishful thinking though to think that we will ever go (Pebble Bed) nuclear with all the unjustified alarmism and FUD going around.

bonkey

fishfoodie wrote:

Well a quick bit of research yields the FACT that Uranium forms 2 ppm of the earth's crust. So I think we have a wee while to go before we run out. In fact its ~ 1000 times more plentiful than Gold.

Two things struck me reading this comment:

1) Why is it that every time that someone capitalises, underlines and bolds a word like "fact" you know they're about to abuse said word?

2) Isn't it just as well that no-one's suggesting we use gold to generate power.

While I certainly agree that there are risks associated with Nuclear power, all the actual, real-life, scientifically gathered, statisitically approved analysis says that Nuclear power is the Safest (i.e. Less people die ) form of Energy, this is normalised by kWHr. Unfortunately isnt reflected in public sentiment towards it.

You'll have no problem linking to such high-calibre material, I assume? It will also, one would also assume, take into account the question of nuclear waste management?

If I were to list things in Ireland today that were a serious risk to health, I personally would be far more worried about things like Water quality & naturally occuring Radon, Nuclear accidents wouldnt make the top 50, its a sad fact that the hype & paranoia around Nuclear power diverts useful resource away from things that actually are threats to health.

Key word in that sentence : today.

Ignore the problems of nuclear power, and leave them to our descendants to sort out. Sure, isn't that what's "worked" with every other form of pollution to date?

jc

piraka

oscarBravo wrote:

Um. How does wind power kill people?

Wind power may not kill people , but it certainly has a serious impact on environmental sensitive areas throughout country.