Wind Blows By Coal To Become Iowa's Largest Source of Electricity 170
A new report from the American Wind Energy Association says wind is now the largest single source of electricity in Iowa. The Des Moines Register reports: According to the trade association's Wind Powers America 2019 Annual Report, Iowa is now generating more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy, accounting for more than 40% of the state's electricity. Wind became the leading source of electricity in both Iowa and Kansas this year, making them the first states to reach that benchmark. Previously, coal-fired power generation had been Iowa's main source of electricity. Projects in Iowa added the second-most wind power capacity of any state in 2019, behind only Texas. The report also says Iowa is second in the nation in total wind industry jobs, with more than 9,000. The state's total economic investment in wind energy grew by $3 billion to reach $19 billion -- also second in the nation. Texas leads both categories.
lessStrawMoreMan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:lessStrawMoreMan (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any mod points but this certainly deserves them.
they're popping up like dandelions here in Iowa! (Score:2, Interesting)
and Wisconsin blows. so we get a really good cross-wind here!
Jokes aside, it's still surreal to be driving down interstate 380, crest a hill, and suddenly see hundreds of wind turbines spread around both sides of the road, all the way out to the horizon.
Then a few minutes later you'll be passing an enormous truck load - an 18 wheeler with the root end of a blade strapped to a short bed, then the enormous blade spamming open road for what seems like hundreds of feet, till it gets to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Less wind turbine waste than coal ash for an equivalent amount of energy.
Re:they're popping up like dandelions here in Iowa (Score:5, Informative)
are becoming a pollution problem because nobody is recycling them
No, this is nonsense. It is oil/coal industry propaganda.
The total volume of turbine blades disposed of in the last decade is less than the amount of disposable diapers sent to landfills every hour. It is a negligible problem. The turbine blades are inert and are not "pollution".
The purpose of the propaganda is to convince people that a bit of fiberglass in a landfill and mountains of toxic coal ash are comparable. They aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"To break down just the blades into something recyclable requires crushing equipment something along the line of that designed for mining. It's not a trivial process." another use for ex-coal mining equipment? or https://www.compositesworld.co... [compositesworld.com]
"ALL solutions create problems of their
Re: (Score:2)
Blade (and other resulting) waste is DEFINITELY a problem that was just kicked down the road as there was no plan in place for it.
The only "problem" with turbine blades is they can't be crushed and need to be shredded instead, which means you can't just send them to any old landfill unless you want to bury them whole.
That's a "problem", much like the fact that I am talking to you now knowing full well I haven't shopped for dinner yet is also a "problem", one that is trivial to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To get some actual numbers for the EU, estimates are that in 2025, wind power will be the fifth largest source of waste fibre glass/composites. It will at that point still be surpassed by the marine sector, transport, electricity/electronics, and construction. The absolute amount is estimated to be 66.000 that year.
Multiple teams are working to find ways to separate the organic parts of the fibre glass from the inorganic parts. Once that is done, the easiest solution is to burn the organic parts for heat an
Re: they're popping up like dandelions here in Iow (Score:2)
I recall reading that the blades have to be replaced periodically (not sure why?) but are becoming a pollution problem because nobody is recycling them, just burying them. We need to figure that out.
The solution is straightforwardâ"sharpen one edge of the blades, and ship them to Japan for the giant robots to wield in combat.
Re: (Score:2)
Put SuperKendall and the Binary Bro in front of those wind farms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, definitely not. There's this thing call The Sun, and it only shines on half the world at a time, creating a temperature difference. As long as there is a temperature difference, there will be pressure differences, and wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. but HOW MUCH WIND? The amount of energy supplied to the Earth is limited. Some of it goes to heating the atmosphere, some to plants, etc. I don't know the exact number, maybe ask on xkcd. Eventually though, we could have so many wind turbines that they suck ALL the wind energy out (again, I don't know if it's theoretically possible to do that, ask xkcd; but your wind farm could be so efficient that nothing downwind gets any energy). We'd probably have to fill the sky with turbines though ...
Re: (Score:2)
The computations have been done pretty thoroughly by Dr. Vaclav Smil of U. Manitoba, can be found in his popular-press book, "Energy Density" which has the theme that the number of square metres of the earth you need to produce one watt is the defining characteristic of an energy source. Wind, obviously, has a really low energy density, and he shows how much is really available.
Bottom line, you can't run the world on it, nor on it plus solar. He digs into the base-load vs intermittent issue, the need for
Re: (Score:2)
I'd certainly like to read that. "x sq m of earth required to produce one watt" seems simplistic.
First of all, one watt is a power rating, not an energy rating.
Sq m of earth would naturally favour some methods - extraction of oil and nuclear.
Does the theory account for energy in vs. energy out? If it takes a significant fraction of one watt (or watt-hour) to produce one watt, or one watt-hour, that's going effect your calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. but HOW MUCH WIND? The amount of energy supplied to the Earth is limited. Some of it goes to heating the atmosphere, some to plants, etc. I don't know the exact number, maybe ask on xkcd. Eventually though, we could have so many wind turbines that they suck ALL the wind energy out (again, I don't know if it's theoretically possible to do that, ask xkcd; but your wind farm could be so efficient that nothing downwind gets any energy). We'd probably have to fill the sky with turbines though ...
That's not the limiting factor with wind. The limiting factor with wind is the amount of specific rare earths you are willing to mine to build the turbines. Purely kinetic energy sources like wind need those need Samarium and Neodymium magnets. And mining those rare earths is nasty business. That's really where the limiting factor and amount of environmental damage from wind would come from.
Re: (Score:2)
From this article.. https://yes2renewables.org/201... [yes2renewables.org]
ENERCON wind energy converters generate environmentally-friendly power totally without neodymium. The gearless design on which all wind turbine types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based employs an annular generator with separate excitation. The magnetic fields required by th
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, think about it this way: the wind blows in order to equalize pressure differences in different parts of the atmosphere. If you block the wind, then you block the pressure from being equalized, meaning the pressure hasn't actually equalized at all, thus there will be more wind.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you block the wind, then you block the pressure from being equalized, meaning the pressure hasn't actually equalized at all, thus there will be more wind."
If I set up a paddle wheel in a water fall ...
You aren't blocking "the wind".
Re: (Score:2)
There is a *lot* of wind energy, and we won't run out in a long time. But they said that about oil and nucler fuel too.
But who said that about oil and nuclear? My recollection are those who were promoting it and not those who were concerned about the environment. The lack of oil and nuclear fuel has been a concern to many.
I'm wondering what such a world would look like. Huge wind catchers, dozens of kilometers high, grabbing high altitude winds because on the ground level, the forest of conventional wind catchers means permanent dead calm anywhere but in front of them, and you get sued if you try to use or block that. ;)
Yeah, as I said: Long time... :)
Well with that level of engineering you could build massive solar farms that blanket the Earth. The scale is imaginable but maybe not possible given resources.
Re: (Score:2)
they take energy out of the wind.
Two solutions:
1. Trees also block the wind. So require anyone erecting a wind turbine to cut down a tree to compensate.
2. Improve math and science education so that people are no longer stupid enough to believe that this is a problem.
I knew it blew there (Score:3)
And now we have the proof
Good news! (Score:2)
Re: Good news! (Score:2)
I disagree. We could definitely build (unconventional) windmills that could withstand tornados and hurricanes. The problem is that we'd need such storms to happen all the time, for them to be viable. And we're not on Jupiter or Venus. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Even current wind mills withstand a tornado .... obviously it is a different thing if the point where it touches the ground goes directly over a windmill, but most should survive it.
Don't you mean 0.000,01 petawatts (Score:3)
How about 10,000,000,000 watts aka 10GW or 10^10W? Would that make too much sense?
If yes, then I've got a small hatchback car in an Olympic swimming pool in the basement of the Library of Congress to sell to you. Costs only a million billion million million microcents! Order today! :P
Iowans laugh now (Score:4, Funny)
But they won't be laughing when they all start getting cancer from the windmills.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been near a windmill? You would have to be living underneath one and you still wouldn't nearly approach the levels of LF noise and vibration these studies are talking about.
Re:Iowans laugh now (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever been near a windmill?
As a matter of fact, I have. I acted as an expert witness and provided calibrated acoustical measurements for a civil engineering firm regarding siting of a wind turbine farm. You know, sound is kind of my thing - it's what I do for a living, and I am well-known in much of the acoustics industry. I used a set of calibrated Crysound 311 microphones, my trusty APx525 with the APx1701 interface, and redundant measurements over the course of 2 weeks (both with turbines turning and not, at 4 times throughout the day, with levels recorded and averaged over a 10 minute span).
The recorded levels of infrasound (below 12 Hz) at 300 meters distance was quite high, well over 105 dB SPL. Predominantly created by beat frequencies between turbines. Rather large, slow pulses that were below the level of audibility but high enough to still be quite perceptible. This was in-line with other published results [nih.gov] which showed levels of 80 dB SPL at a range of 3000 meters (which would provide approximately 20 dB of attenuation), and even measurable and potentially perceivable [scitation.org] at distances of 10,000 meters.
Now, what is YOUR scientific experience with infrasound that allows you to dismiss the papers regarding the physiological impacts of low frequencies and how well such sound travels over distance?
I don't have scientific experience (Score:2)
Also while I'm none too bright the papers you linked to are written to be understood by layman. So I read them.
The first paper you linked to saw most of the damage in elderly, and it was "statistically significant". Worthy of note, but I'll take that over the effects of coal plants any day of the week. I can also get far enough from wind farms that it doesn't matter, but the wing brings the local coal plant's problems to my doorstep.
The second study you pointed to is more abo
Re: (Score:2)
The first paper you linked to saw most of the damage in elderly, and it was "statistically significant". Worthy of note, but I'll take that over the effects of coal plants any day of the week.
Yeah. who cares about a bunch of old people. They're statistically more likely to be conservative, so we should just get rid of them (except Bernie, of course!).
The second study you pointed to is more about full body vibration from people using power tools daily. Yes, that's a risk for the people maintaining the wind farms, but not for the general populace.
Are you familiar with what SPL is? It's Sound PRESSURE Level. Your body is exposed to it. A level of 105 dB SPL is equivalent to ~3.6 Pa (kg/m^2) of pressure. Or about 0.03W per square meter. Which, for the typical adult male, means a continuous 60 mW of mechanical power provided. That's actually quite a bit, when you think about it 24/7/365.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live within 3000 meters of an interstate highway, you're getting many times the amount of infrasound as near a windmill.
May I see your data, please? I've linked data showing infrasound from wind turbines - where's yours for road noise? Do you even know the spectrum of road noise?
You still haven't shown any research that shows negative physiological effects from windmills that are any worse than the traffic noise outside your house
I guess this escaped your notice:
Our data suggest that chronic exposure to whole-body vibration and noise may lead to an increase in the level of SCEs in man.
And note that [wikipedia.org]
Frequent SCEs may also be related to formation of tumors.
So I've shown quite a few scientific, peer reviewed papers and such. You've made assertions. Who's anti-science, "pope"?
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, I have. I acted as an expert witness and provided calibrated acoustical measurements for a civil engineering firm regarding siting of a wind turbine farm. You know, sound is kind of my thing - it's what I do for a living, and I am well-known in much of the acoustics industry.
I believe you, and I am honestly impressed and a bit envious. I have engineered in recording studios more off than on for 25 years, and worked in reinforcement for the same, but I also have over a decade and a half of experience in sound design and engineering for the many moving targets of live theatrical and musical performance, but I have no experience or knowledge to compare to yours. Before working in audio, I did, however, and incidentally while working on a computer science degree, also study logic.
Re: (Score:2)
bing bong bing bing bing
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for reminding us we have a mentally ill president.
It's the Dutch experiment all over again! (Score:3)
The Dutch people started using windmills in large quantities hundreds of years ago. All the people who started doing that are dead now. Think about it!
A super-genius (I think he taught at MIT for a record number of years) once said "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Re: (Score:2)
The Dutch people started using windmills in large quantities hundreds of years ago. All the people who started doing that are dead now. Think about it!
The Dutch used windmills to pump water to reclaim land [wikipedia.org].
A super-genius (I think he taught at MIT for a record number of years) once said "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I think they continue to reclaim land, so it's probably true.
Re: (Score:2)
Pump water, generate electricity, it's all the same to the wind, and to the cancer that the sound of a windmill causes!
Ignorance thy name is "journalist" (Score:3, Informative)
Megawatts are a measure of power, not energy.
Peak power does not measure total energy supplied. Or is that average power?
Makes no sense, and put out by an advocacy group.
Re: (Score:2)
Peak power
And is that actual realized peak power? Or installed capacity? Some of which being subsidized with tax credits never has to actually spin to make its owners a profit.
The article is a mess, but (Score:2)
The curious thing is the relatively low amount of electricity generated by natural gas in Iowa (less than 12%). In most states, gas has passed
Power != Energy (Score:2)
Reminds of the time we had a Soviet Cosmonaut giving us an extra-mural lecture in college, the commercial attache from the embassy translated. The attache did not have a good science background and was conflating force, energy and power kind of interchangeably. It was hilarious.
Astonished (Score:2)
(wind turbine blades can't be recycled) (Score:2)
But why would you throw them out?
They should keep turning for a long time.
Unless they get hit by a tornado, or Don Quixote.
Re: (Score:2)
Lightning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cutting them up and burying them anywhere is fine, they're inert as rocks. They're not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Long time" is not "forever" - windmill blades wear out
Re:Future (Score:5, Interesting)
Depending on their size, recycled fragments from blades can work as insulation material, ballast, road/pavement beds, permeable ground drainage "fill", and more - and that's just in construction. If push comes to shove, you can also use the blades intact as part of large art installations or, more practically, things like park benches if they're the smaller sized ones.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to design specialized tools to cut it up on site, will in the end be cheaper than specialized transit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just climb on the huge smooth blade and cut it up with an angle grinder or circular saw. That's going to give the industry a great reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to design specialized tools to cut it up on site
No, they need to construct fairly standard tools to cut it up on a site that doesn't normally handle materials we've been using and disposing of for 30 years.
Re:Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because coal is recyclable, right?
Re:Future (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is. It's turned into CO2 and water, both of which end up creating more plants, which - given enough time - form more coal.
Actually no. Most of the coal was created in the Carboniferous era (guess why it's named that). This was during a time BEFORE the evolution of the fungi that eat dead trees. "What happens when a tree falls in the forest?" "Mushrooms eat it."
In the Carboniferous era, those mushrooms did not exist. So all the dead trees just piled up and piled up, and eventually became coal.
That just can't happen today. When a plant dies, it's completely decomposed by fungi and other organisms, and recycled into the biosphere.
There will be no more coal.
Re: (Score:3)
I give you the one word to prove my case:
Peat [britannica.com]
Peat formed well after the carboniferous age, and given enough time it turns into lignite - a type of coal. Lots of coal is less than 100 million years old [nationalgeographic.org], hundreds of millions of years after the carboniferous period. All that nasty brown coal (lignite) that Germany burns? Lignite and sub-bituminous coal, which is all post-carboniferous period.
True but Peat's not coal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Future (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah ! That's except at Chernobyl because the radiation kills the microorganisms. We need more Chernobyls.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is. It's turned into CO2 and water, both of which end up creating more plants, which - given enough time - form more coal.
Actually no. Most of the coal was created in the Carboniferous era (guess why it's named that). This was during a time BEFORE the evolution of the fungi that eat dead trees. "What happens when a tree falls in the forest?" "Mushrooms eat it."
In the Carboniferous era, those mushrooms did not exist. So all the dead trees just piled up and piled up, and eventually became coal.
That just can't happen today. When a plant dies, it's completely decomposed by fungi and other organisms, and recycled into the biosphere.
There will be no more coal.
Too simplistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Future (Score:4, Informative)
"Future landfill material (wind turbine blades can't be recycled)"
LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Annual excess mortality and morbidity
In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world,[4] which is approximately one third of all premature deaths related to all air pollution sources,[44] for example in Istanbul by lung diseases and cancer.[45]
Pollutants emitted by burning coal include fine particulates (PM2.5) and ground level ozone. Every year, the burning of coal without the use of available pollution control technology causes thousands of preventable deaths in the United States. A study commissioned by the Maryland nurses association in 2006 found that emissions from just six of Maryland's coal-burning plants caused 700 deaths per year nationwide, including 100 in Maryland.[46] Since installation of pollution abatement equipment on one of these six, the Brandon Shores plant, now "produces 90 percent less nitrogen oxide, an ingredient of smog; 95 percent less sulfur, which causes acid rain; and vastly lower fractions of other pollutants."[46]
Re: (Score:2)
People are always more scared of novel deaths. Common-as-dirt causes of death soon cease to attract attention. Consider how the 9/11 attacks changed global politics for decades, even though the death toll was equivalent to a little than one month's worth of US traffic accident fatalities.
Even if so they're inert. (Score:2)
Landfill space is not at a premium. Hammermill and bury for future use in some other product.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything can be recycled (up to a point), except one thing in this world
Theoretically yes however practically that may not always be the case as the effort/cost is more than the worth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Then the story is fake news: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid... [eia.gov]
Wind is lumped in with "Other renewables" - look at Consumption by Source
As always guruevi, you're fake news.
You're linking to 2017 numbers...
(click on electricity and have your mind blown)
Re:40% of potential production capacity (Score:4, Informative)
Iowa's main sources of actual energy consumption is still coal and natural gas. By an order of magnitude.
As with Germany, it's great they're installing wind but it isn't accounting for nearly as much contribution to the grid as would a more stable source.
According to the graphs, Iowa exports as much energy as it actually produces from wind.
But yeah, 40% of potential capacity, that looks like a lot but when the wind doesn't blow or you're just having to waste it Into resistor banks because the output fluctuates too quickly, not sure I'd count that as success.
Is there any topic you don't lie about guruevi?
What have windmills ever done to you?
Re: (Score:2)
What have windmills ever done to you?
Who knows, does it suck or does it blow? Whatever the answer, it's the left's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
In Germany, 126 TWh of electricity were produced using wind power in 2019. This is actual production. This makes wind the biggest source of electricity in Germany, bigger than coal (57 TWh), lignite (114 TWh), nuclear (75 TWh), gas (91 TWh), hydro (19 TWh), biomass (45 TWh), and solar (47 Th.).
If we add up lignite and coal it is still bigger though (171 TWh) but if you add the two intermittent sources wind and solar than this is even slightly larger (173 TWh).
So what was your argument again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I added it up for you. Maybe read to the end? (but they are not the same)
Re: (Score:2)
lignite IS coal!
No it is not.
It is a dense kind of turf.
Re:40% of potential production capacity (Score:4, Insightful)
Iowa actually has generated more electric energy from wind than from coal in 2020. Thus the "order of magnitude" is way off (by at least an order of magnitude).
The same is valid for Germany. There, in 2020 so far, more than 50% of all electric energy was generated by wind and solar, while coal accounted for less than 25 percent. In numbers: Wind generated 55.94 TWh, hard coal accounted for 10.46 TWh, and brown coal (lignite) for 21.70 TWh [energy-charts.de].
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly surprising, 40% of their electricity is generated by subsidized wind mills.
How much have the other 49 states (and possessions and territories) contributed to help Iowans cut their electric bills?
Re: (Score:2)
How much money is Iowa saving everyone else by pioneering the technology and reducing pollution/health damage?
Try to think longer term.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Germany has high energy prices, because energy in Germany is heavily taxed. The actual cost for generating electric energy is somewhere around 8 ct/kWh, while the price for the consumer is around 30 ct/kWh. It's the same with gas. The price for a gallon of fuel is somewhere around US$ 6 in Germany, and 70% of that is taxes. And even if you want to burn coal in your private fireplace, you have to pay taxes on the coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Americans use on average 3-4x as much electricity per person, so we don't really pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It pays for the renewables ramp up and also encourages manufacturers to build more efficient appliances. I don't mind paying a bit more for that.
Also Germany has the most stable power grid in the world. That obviously costs money. We don't want a shitty grid like in the states.
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline prices in Germany are 90% taxes.
Production cost of electricity is around cents (wind) to 4.5 cents (traditional sources) and spending how you calculate about 8 cents for nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you care what our electricity price are? Our bills are lower than yours :P ...
Same way I do not care what your hospital prices are
You live in a 3rd world country, I live in Europe and Thailand ... go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
As with Germany, it's great they're installing wind but it isn't accounting for nearly as much contribution to the grid as would a more stable source.
Germany is producing about 45% of its electricity with renewables, and more than half of that is wind.
No idea under what rock you live. Which part of: Iowas main electricity source is wind, did you not grasp?
Re: (Score:2)
And export its coal energy production to other East European countries and Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
One might state, "But the wind doesn't blow all the time", well, as people adopt electric cars this will be less important, probably, since you could presumably coordinate charging, to some extent, when the wind is blowing harder by having your electric company make instantly available to your electric chargers the current price of electricity...
That's a really good point, but you could also reverse your approach.
Car's aren't driven most of the time, just some of the time. If electric cars are connected to chargers when parked they would sink huge amounts of electrical energy whenever it was available and act as a load leveler. Millions of electric cars connected to the power grid could act as a base load source of power for when the wind wasn't blowing and a sink for when it is but demand is low.
Software could manage either the sale or storag
Re: (Score:2)
So all we need to do is keep our electric cars plugged into the grid when it's windy, so that windmill owners can recoup their investment? That might be a hard sell to people that plan on driving their cars during the day.
Re: (Score:2)
^ this
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, we are actually doing okay in this area in Texas. You see the blades going by on the freeway occasionally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Wind power in Texas consists of many wind farms with a total installed nameplate capacity of 25,629 MW[1][2] from over 40 different projects. If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in the world:[1] The installed wind capacity in Texas exceeds installed wind capacity in all countries but China, the United States, Germany and India. Texas produces the most wind power of any U.S. state.[1][3]
Texas, sadly, has a lot of anti-solar policies.
I think this is because Utilities can own "Big Wind" but they can't own "Solar".
TBH, if we get solar here, the grid connect fee will just go up.
Just to fact check the president: Do the lights go out in Texas when the wind doesn't blow? Do you all have cancer from the windmill noise? Are you up to your necks in dead birds?
Re: (Score:2)
Wind power in Texas consists of many wind farms with a total installed nameplate capacity of 25,629 MW[1][2] from over 40 different projects. If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in the world:[1] The installed wind capacity in Texas exceeds installed wind capacity in all countries but China, the United States, Germany and India.
It's interesting comparing countries.
It really, really ought to. It's huge, empty and has fairly uniform wind. It has nearly twice the land area, and a third of the populatio
Re: (Score:3)
No new plant, just a new block for an existing plant as a replacement for three old and far less efficient blocks at the same plant and two whole powerplants in the neighbouring cities. It is also the last one.
Re: (Score:3)
The 4 in Datteln 4 means block number four, you dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)