Wind or Nuclear?

[Old Rocks]

Here are some figures from the wind industry. Like the nuclear site, they also point out the past failures.


http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html

Using typical gas project financing terms instead, the cost also drops even if the developer owns the project, to 3.69 cents/kWh. Costs in all cases assumed use of the federal production tax credit.

Wiser and Kahn set out to examine the proposition, long advanced by members of the wind industry, that wind projects would be cheaper if they could take advantage of the lower-cost financing available to large electric utilities. In general, they said, that appears to be true, although they caution that utility investment analysis methods may not be completely accurate and may overstate the savings that could be attained.

Their comparison is based on a 50-MW wind farm with an installed cost of $1,000/kW, a 30% capacity factor, and operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses of 0.65 cents/kWh.

 

[Old Rocks]

One thing We rarely here talked about in reference to Alternative is, Cost of upkeep, maintenance, and repair, not to mention life expectancy. There are breakthroughs, and that is good, still We are being at best, misinformed, and at worst, out right lied to. Solar Cells for example, vary widely in value, by type. Let the buyer beware.

Do you think this has not been the case in nuclear?

What is "whoops" and how did it come to refer to one of the biggest municipal bond defaults in history?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was formed in the 1950s to make certain that the Pacific Northwest had a constant source of electrical power. The Packwood Lake Dam was the first project undertaken by the WPPSS, and ran seven months past the completion date; this first project by WPPSS foreshadowed its future incompetence in public works.

The idea to use clean, cheap nuclear power became popular in the 1960s and WPPSS saw an opportunity to meet growing consumption demands in the Northwest. It planned a system of five nuclear power plants that would be financed by a public issue of bonds and repaid with sales from the plants. The bonds were issued, but the robust sales that WPPSS had intended never materialized.

The biggest problems were endemic cost overruns, sloppy management and outright idiocy. An example of WPPSS's problems involved a pipe hanger, essentially a bracket to hold pipes in place, that was redesigned and rebuilt no less than 17 times, costing more with each revision. Contractors, long accustomed to government efficiency, overcharged and under-delivered in almost every category. This caused safety inspectors to call for more stringent rules, which were implemented mid-construction by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a result of the tougher regulations, much of what had been built needed to be torn down and redesigned.

At the beginning of the 1980s, only of the five WPPSS plants was nearing completion. By this time, nuclear power had been reexamined and was found to not be as clean as was originally thought. Some cities boycotted nuclear power from the plants before the facilities were even up and running. The cost overruns reached the point where more than $24 billion would be required to complete the work, but recouping funds would be a tricky matter because of less-than-promising sales. Construction halted on all but the near-completed second plant; the first plant was once again being redesigned. WPPSS was forced to default on $2.25 billion worth of municipal bonds.

 

[JD_2B]

In Massachusetts, USA, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project will generate
over 400 megawatts of electricity - enough for 400,000 homes. Thats 130 wind turbines

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, commonly referred to as Palo Verde Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles (80 km) west of central Phoenix, and is currently the largest nuclear generation facility in the United States, averaging over 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production in 2003[1] to serve approximately 4 million people. Arizona Public Service.

Currently we consume the equivalent of 19,343 billion KWh of total energy in this country (if you convert all the petroleum and natural gas to its electric energy equivalent using 2006 data). That means we need to produce 437 billion KWh of new energy each year. That is equivalent to 50 Giga Watts (GW) of new electric production capacity.

Let's put this into perspective. This is equivalent to:

* Building 50 new nuclear plants each year.
* Building 40,000 3 Mega Watt (MW) wind generators each year.
* Installing 150 GW of solar cells.

(I am assuming that wind production is 40% or max capacity and that solar cells produce power for 8 hours per day at rated capacity.)

Let's look at the cost of the three alternatives:

* Nuclear - $5 billion per plant (1 GW) = $250 billion per year
* Wind - $7.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $375 billion per year
* Solar - $10.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $525 billion per year

Actually, wind only costs abut 3 billion dollars per one GW of actual wind harvested energy. Technically, it is only said to be one billion per one GW, but since they only run at about 30% capacity, the cost is tripled.

Michael Hammond, Are wind farms just hot air….?

Wind Power: Can We Get to 300 GW by 2030?

A nuclear power plant costs between 4 and 10 billion per one GW..

Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth about Nuclear Power, Part 3

The Nuclear Green Revolution: Texas Wind not Competitive with Nuclear

Solar kinda sucks.. I am not a fan of going big with solar.. Actually, I think that the UK is going a little overboard with the wind thing, even.

I would also add in there that since people can also buy their own windmills, for a relatively inexpensive cost now, then the need for the governments to build these wind farms actually decreases dramatically, also, increasing the amount of energy the average home can get from sustainable sources.

 

[mdn2000]

Mdn, you dumb ass, they do not spin the blades on a windless day. The mills just set there with blades not moving.

No, Mdn, dear old asshole, I did not claim that natural gas was not used in a steel mill. Someone stated that coke had to be used to smelt steel and iron. I pointed out that almost all modern mills use electricity to smelt the steel and iron. And I work in a steel mill, not a foundry.
.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

Before rolling, the beam blanks - both our own as well as those from external suppliers
- are placed in a natural gas fired pusher furnace where they are heated to a temperature
of approximately 1,200 °C.

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee....... said nothing at all about the reheat process that is done before the rolling.

The slabs are created using electricity, the slabs are later put into a reheat furnace to be heated to the correct rolling temperature for the rolling process.

Nice way to walk backwards there Old Crock, you stated in response to me that steel was made with electricity, we were speaking of windmills, you posted a source proving this, you claimed no gas was needed, your source proved you wrong.

 

[mdn2000]

In Massachusetts, USA, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project will generate
over 400 megawatts of electricity - enough for 400,000 homes. Thats 130 wind turbines

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, commonly referred to as Palo Verde Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles (80 km) west of central Phoenix, and is currently the largest nuclear generation facility in the United States, averaging over 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production in 2003[1] to serve approximately 4 million people. Arizona Public Service.

Currently we consume the equivalent of 19,343 billion KWh of total energy in this country (if you convert all the petroleum and natural gas to its electric energy equivalent using 2006 data). That means we need to produce 437 billion KWh of new energy each year. That is equivalent to 50 Giga Watts (GW) of new electric production capacity.

Let's put this into perspective. This is equivalent to:

* Building 50 new nuclear plants each year.
* Building 40,000 3 Mega Watt (MW) wind generators each year.
* Installing 150 GW of solar cells.

(I am assuming that wind production is 40% or max capacity and that solar cells produce power for 8 hours per day at rated capacity.)

Let's look at the cost of the three alternatives:

* Nuclear - $5 billion per plant (1 GW) = $250 billion per year
* Wind - $7.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $375 billion per year
* Solar - $10.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $525 billion per year

Actually, wind only costs abut 3 billion dollars per one GW of actual wind harvested energy. Technically, it is only said to be one billion per one GW, but since they only run at about 30% capacity, the cost is tripled.

Michael Hammond, Are wind farms just hot air….?

Wind Power: Can We Get to 300 GW by 2030?

A nuclear power plant costs between 4 and 10 billion per one GW..

Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth about Nuclear Power, Part 3

The Nuclear Green Revolution: Texas Wind not Competitive with Nuclear

Solar kinda sucks.. I am not a fan of going big with solar.. Actually, I think that the UK is going a little overboard with the wind thing, even.

I would also add in there that since people can also buy their own windmills, for a relatively inexpensive cost now, then the need for the governments to build these wind farms actually decreases dramatically, also, increasing the amount of energy the average home can get from sustainable sources.

If a person could by a windmill and run the house I am all for it. Nothing wrong with that.

I have posted specifically addressing commercial power sources.

Nuclear is so unbelievable, the power is astronomical, all the wind power that exsits today can not match a third of the power at Palo Verde, speaking of Palo Verde it should be noted that there are three power plants that make up this facility, each rated a bit over 1 gigawatt, added up they equal three.

Solar, nobody addresses the water used by solar, a tremendous amount of water is needed at a solar farm. How much does it cost to pump all that water in the middle of the desert, more electricity than the solar farm produces.

Nukes are the way to go, AP1000 by westinghouse is the future, that is why China is buying them. Actually China is increasing its electrical capacity and it aint wind, its nuke and hydro as well as coal, oil, and gas. China needs all the energy it can get to make fiberglass for windmills, 270 tons for one windmill. 270,000,000 tons of fiberglass just in Oregon, talk about increasing C02. Oregon alone is destroying the world.