America’s wind energy industry is booming

[Slash]

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

And the point is that you have to install 4 times as many windmills to get the installed capacity to equal power output until wind is operating at 90% rated capacity it will never be as reliable as other power sources

The interesting thing is we are seeing that happen. In the UK wind is being subsidized now less than Nuclear per kw/hr again. In the Netherlands for an offshore energy bid, the bid dropped 25% in 5 months. In the Netherlands a bid price for wind energy dropped 50% in 3 years. In a German auction in April, the average winning bid for the projects was far below expectations, with some bids coming in at the wholesale electricity price -- “meaning no subsidy is required.” Wind energy is booming even with the Obama Bailout deals expired. Back then it was over 5 cents per kw/hr of subsidies and now down to about a penny. The reason it's booming is the costs are falling, up to 10% a year in reduced costs.

I guess that question of what happens if government subsidies go away goes for every energy source. None would be a better example than nuclear power. I mean almost the entire funding of getting that off the ground was built upon efforts by the US military (atomic power, and putting it on ships). The first nuclear power plant in the US was run by the Navy. The first one to put power to the grid run by the Army.

We've got multiple countries studying energy costs. Australia put wind cheaper than coal since 2013. Germany put wind comparable with coal in their study a few years ago. Japan (pre fukushima) 7 years ago put wind and nuclear as comparable. The UK had wind quotes onshore wind as the least costly energy source. US Energy Information Administration put wind as the cheapest source regardless of subsidies, and in the past 7 years, wind and solar being the two with the fastest dropping costs.

The subsidies wind currently gets aren't to keep it alive anymore. It's to put the funds into where they are getting the biggest return. Reducing the cost of energy. That's where I want subsidies, not to support the energy markets, but to help them spend on reducing the costs of their energy and cut costs to the consumers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

And the point is that you have to install 4 times as many windmills to get the installed capacity to equal power output until wind is operating at 90% rated capacity it will never be as reliable as other power sources

The interesting thing is we are seeing that happen. In the UK wind is being subsidized now less than Nuclear per kw/hr again. In the Netherlands for an offshore energy bid, the bid dropped 25% in 5 months. In the Netherlands a bid price for wind energy dropped 50% in 3 years. In a German auction in April, the average winning bid for the projects was far below expectations, with some bids coming in at the wholesale electricity price -- “meaning no subsidy is required.” Wind energy is booming even with the Obama Bailout deals expired. Back then it was over 5 cents per kw/hr of subsidies and now down to about a penny. The reason it's booming is the costs are falling, up to 10% a year in reduced costs.

I guess that question of what happens if government subsidies go away goes for every energy source. None would be a better example than nuclear power. I mean almost the entire funding of getting that off the ground was built upon efforts by the US military (atomic power, and putting it on ships). The first nuclear power plant in the US was run by the Navy. The first one to put power to the grid run by the Army.

We've got multiple countries studying energy costs. Australia put wind cheaper than coal since 2013. Germany put wind comparable with coal in their study a few years ago. Japan (pre fukushima) 7 years ago put wind and nuclear as comparable. The UK had wind quotes onshore wind as the least costly energy source. US Energy Information Administration put wind as the cheapest source regardless of subsidies, and in the past 7 years, wind and solar being the two with the fastest dropping costs.

The subsidies wind currently gets aren't to keep it alive anymore. It's to put the funds into where they are getting the biggest return. Reducing the cost of energy. That's where I want subsidies, not to support the energy markets, but to help them spend on reducing the costs of their energy and cut costs to the consumers.

We need to modernize our nuclear program that we stupidly shelved.

Light water reactors that are the norm are obsolete at this point in time not only because they are less safe than other proven designs but because they need huge tracts of land and enormous amounts of water.

We shelved two reactor designs when we shut sown our nuclear research that were proven to be walk away safe. One in particular, the molten salt reactor, has the most promise. In fact we are currently helping China research and build this very reactor.

The old design can be modified to a smaller unit that can be built off site and shipped by rail. It can use our stockpiles of light water reactor waste as fuel. We can insert it into our existing grid without any major modifications and it allows us a redundancy factor that is better than any intermittent renewable power source as well as the elimination of long distance power transmission needed for renewable power. Land needs are at a bare minimum since these next generation reactors can be buried underground in many cases on land already used for both coal and natural gas electricity generation. This and the meltdown proof design greatly increases the security of our power generation facilities and frees up the millions of acres of land that will be needed for a renewable power grid.

Despite the alarmists who think that the China Syndrome was more than a bad movie the fact is nuclear power is very safe now even with our light water reactors and the next generation reactors will only improve that safety record.

 

[Slash]

real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity

And here is where the probably less as regarding lifespan of a wind turbine comes from.
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.



I never said we should build more coal plants.

If we want a 100% fossil fuel free energy supply it doesn't make sense to base it on intermittent power sources?

As we move from fossil fuels our electricity demand will skyrocket as homes are heated with electricity rather than oil or gas, transportation and industrial processes switching to electricity will be the biggest requirement.

And then there is the security of the grid and our generating you are talking about long distance transmission for much of our power supply not to mention the as of yet proven to be worthwhile grid scale battery storage.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think nuclear power is the best option.

That is an interesting article. Do you have any applicable to US wind tech? Or from impartial sources rather than think tanks that campaign against wind farms? Why do they claim to have a peer reviewed study, but won't list who peer reviewed it? Why did the UK dept of Energy contradict those findings? Why didn't they look at the 90's era turbines still in operation at 15-20 years but instead just go off of calculated projections? Do you believe that wind turbine technology has gone backwards?

I mean Imperial College did a study of 19 year old turbines (interesting, how they exist if they won't last beyond 15 years) and based on actual output rather than the projected output the other study uses, said that turbines are exceeding their predicted lifespans.

Wind turbine life span: New study confirms 25 years

To me it just seems odd to want to choose the study by a group against wind energy that fails to look at actual turbines in that 15+ year lifespan, who fails to list the peers that reviewed their study, and their study opposes reality and other studies. I think that would be a study I would be critical of rather than base my argument on.


As for intermittent power sources, I don't know what you mean there. Nuclear isn't constant. Coal isn't constant. The power grid is based on plants going down for maintenance and safety issues. Nuclear and coal plants in drought affected area's get reduced or shut down all the time due to lack of sufficient cooling water. As for long distance power travel, we already have that. Nuclear is almost entirely east coast and new building is becoming increasingly rural. Same with Coal, they aren't able to put up plants in large metropolis area's anymore. Why does wind have to transmit further?

I mean we do currently transmit that energy a long ways... Almost half the wind power in Kansas where I live is exported to other states, as far as California. Wind energy is a huge boon for my state.

I think nuclear is a potential option as well but there are some big worries there.

Fukushima was reported to cost about 200 billion once all is said and done, wind turbines don't melt down and spew radiation. It's a lot less of a gamble, you aren't needing billions to build a turbine, or fix one if something goes wrong.

Nuclear is failing financially currently due to the costs. Westinghouse went chapter 11 due to 9 billion lost in their nuclear plants (there goes that 8.5 billion dollar gov't loan guarantee). SO now we have 4 plants that may never be finished. GE is scaling back it's nuclear program due to concerns about the economic viability of it. Toshiba is pulling back it's plans for reactors due to not being profitable. General Atomics has the same worry that nuclear energy isn't financially viable. Exelon corporation while making billions in profits, is pushing for legislation of increases on electrical bills to keep their nuclear plants financially viable. Their reasoning was "What it will help us do is not make profits but avoid losses that otherwise would be treated by retiring plants” and that with the raise in rates, there would be no guarantee they would even keep those plants open. Entergy Corp lists billions in profits, but hundreds of millions in losses on their nuclear side of things according to their 2016 financial reporting.

Sure most studies peg it currently about twice as expensive as wind, with wind energy dropping currently at a much faster rate. But like you say and I agree, wind isn't the end all and we may have to use a more expensive option to supplement it. Maybe what's needed is spending more taxpayer dollars on nuclear energy to make new nuclear plants viable again like Andrew Cuomo has suggested? I don't know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity

And here is where the probably less as regarding lifespan of a wind turbine comes from.
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.



I never said we should build more coal plants.

If we want a 100% fossil fuel free energy supply it doesn't make sense to base it on intermittent power sources?

As we move from fossil fuels our electricity demand will skyrocket as homes are heated with electricity rather than oil or gas, transportation and industrial processes switching to electricity will be the biggest requirement.

And then there is the security of the grid and our generating you are talking about long distance transmission for much of our power supply not to mention the as of yet proven to be worthwhile grid scale battery storage.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think nuclear power is the best option.

That is an interesting article. Do you have any applicable to US wind tech? Or from impartial sources rather than think tanks that campaign against wind farms? Why do they claim to have a peer reviewed study, but won't list who peer reviewed it? Why did the UK dept of Energy contradict those findings? Why didn't they look at the 90's era turbines still in operation at 15-20 years but instead just go off of calculated projections? Do you believe that wind turbine technology has gone backwards?

I mean Imperial College did a study of 19 year old turbines (interesting, how they exist if they won't last beyond 15 years) and based on actual output rather than the projected output the other study uses, said that turbines are exceeding their predicted lifespans.

Wind turbine life span: New study confirms 25 years

To me it just seems odd to want to choose the study by a group against wind energy that fails to look at actual turbines in that 15+ year lifespan, who fails to list the peers that reviewed their study, and their study opposes reality and other studies. I think that would be a study I would be critical of rather than base my argument on.


As for intermittent power sources, I don't know what you mean there. Nuclear isn't constant. Coal isn't constant. The power grid is based on plants going down for maintenance and safety issues. Nuclear and coal plants in drought affected area's get reduced or shut down all the time due to lack of sufficient cooling water. As for long distance power travel, we already have that. Nuclear is almost entirely east coast and new building is becoming increasingly rural. Same with Coal, they aren't able to put up plants in large metropolis area's anymore. Why does wind have to transmit further?

I mean we do currently transmit that energy a long ways... Almost half the wind power in Kansas where I live is exported to other states, as far as California. Wind energy is a huge boon for my state.

I think nuclear is a potential option as well but there are some big worries there.

Fukushima was reported to cost about 200 billion once all is said and done, wind turbines don't melt down and spew radiation. It's a lot less of a gamble, you aren't needing billions to build a turbine, or fix one if something goes wrong.

Nuclear is failing financially currently due to the costs. Westinghouse went chapter 11 due to 9 billion lost in their nuclear plants (there goes that 8.5 billion dollar gov't loan guarantee). SO now we have 4 plants that may never be finished. GE is scaling back it's nuclear program due to concerns about the economic viability of it. Toshiba is pulling back it's plans for reactors due to not being profitable. General Atomics has the same worry that nuclear energy isn't financially viable. Exelon corporation while making billions in profits, is pushing for legislation of increases on electrical bills to keep their nuclear plants financially viable. Their reasoning was "What it will help us do is not make profits but avoid losses that otherwise would be treated by retiring plants” and that with the raise in rates, there would be no guarantee they would even keep those plants open. Entergy Corp lists billions in profits, but hundreds of millions in losses on their nuclear side of things according to their 2016 financial reporting.

Sure most studies peg it currently about twice as expensive as wind, with wind energy dropping currently at a much faster rate. But like you say and I agree, wind isn't the end all and we may have to use a more expensive option to supplement it. Maybe what's needed is spending more taxpayer dollars on nuclear energy to make new nuclear plants viable again like Andrew Cuomo has suggested? I don't know.

We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK

I fail to see how our numbers should or even would be different.

The insistence of wind advocates using only installed capacity rather than actual output tells me that none of their numbers are to be trusted.

Installed capacity doesn't have any meaningful value. Output is all that matters when it comes to power generation.

Where wind has been gone to in Europe the cost is always higher than estimated, power generation is always less than estimated.

In order to replace a coal or gas power plant of say 500 Megawatts we would need to install 2000 Megawatts of wind capacity and also some nonexistent grid scale battery system and upgrades to our transmission facilities to convert large amounts of DC power to AC power and to transmit that power over much longer distances than we do now.

None of that is necessary with upgraded nuclear power production since there is a one to one replacement ratio and nuclear plants have an expected lifespan of 60 or more years.

Researchers at MIT predict a 500 MW next generation molten salt reactor could be built for half the price of a same size light water reactor or about 1.7 billion.

Now to install 2000 MW of wind capacity needed to produce the 500 MW output and the cost per MW of installed wind power being about 2 million per MW the equivalent wind power would cost 4 billion so there is a price differential in favor of nuclear with quite a margin so even if nuclear costs more than the estimates there is still an economic argument for it. But we also don't know what grid scale batteries will cost and even if they will work efficiently enough, we have to add infrastructure improvement costs of new roads and transmission lines and realize that these turbines very well might have to be replace as many as three times during the lifespan of a nuclear plat


So with wind we have actual installation costs of 4 times the rated capacity to replace an equivalent fossil fuel plant, a need for as yet untried grid scale batteries, major grid upgrades, reliance on power transmitted over very long distances which in all reality makes power outages more not less likely and those outages will impact a much larger population, an uncertain life span of turbines and the use of significantly more land that could be developed in the future.

Going to a 100% nuclear power generation that could use the existing sites of both coal and gas fired plants would save both installation costs and keep power generation and use more local as well as adding more plants on much smaller areas of land than even our current nuclear plants use would add both security and redundancy to our power grid.

 

[Slash]

We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK

I fail to see how our numbers should or even would be different.

The insistence of wind advocates using only installed capacity rather than actual output tells me that none of their numbers are to be trusted.

Installed capacity doesn't have any meaningful value. Output is all that matters when it comes to power generation.

Where wind has been gone to in Europe the cost is always higher than estimated, power generation is always less than estimated.

In order to replace a coal or gas power plant of say 500 Megawatts we would need to install 2000 Megawatts of wind capacity and also some nonexistent grid scale battery system and upgrades to our transmission facilities to convert large amounts of DC power to AC power and to transmit that power over much longer distances than we do now.

None of that is necessary with upgraded nuclear power production since there is a one to one replacement ratio and nuclear plants have an expected lifespan of 60 or more years.

Researchers at MIT predict a 500 MW next generation molten salt reactor could be built for half the price of a same size light water reactor or about 1.7 billion.

Now to install 2000 MW of wind capacity needed to produce the 500 MW output and the cost per MW of installed wind power being about 2 million per MW the equivalent wind power would cost 4 billion so there is a price differential in favor of nuclear with quite a margin so even if nuclear costs more than the estimates there is still an economic argument for it. But we also don't know what grid scale batteries will cost and even if they will work efficiently enough, we have to add infrastructure improvement costs of new roads and transmission lines and realize that these turbines very well might have to be replace as many as three times during the lifespan of a nuclear plat


So with wind we have actual installation costs of 4 times the rated capacity to replace an equivalent fossil fuel plant, a need for as yet untried grid scale batteries, major grid upgrades, reliance on power transmitted over very long distances which in all reality makes power outages more not less likely and those outages will impact a much larger population, an uncertain life span of turbines and the use of significantly more land that could be developed in the future.

Going to a 100% nuclear power generation that could use the existing sites of both coal and gas fired plants would save both installation costs and keep power generation and use more local as well as adding more plants on much smaller areas of land than even our current nuclear plants use would add both security and redundancy to our power grid.

I agree, we don't have the same experience (though Vestas is Danish). So I'm not sure why you felt the need to go with a UK study that's not very solid in the first place.


I am surprised you want to use France as your example. You keep talking France and their Government run nuclear energy program that isn't showing how much it is subsidized. Electricide de France is what? 36 billion in losses now? Aren't they cutting back their power production from 75% nuclear to 50% nuclear over the next 10 years? Didn't they base that on their plants getting older and new plants being 6 years behind schedule as well as the price tripling to over 10 BILLION dollars??

The only reason they kept building it was a 3 billion dollar bailout. How are cost overruns, massive subsidies, and reducing the use of nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar a selling point? Not to mention their governments most recent study that just closing their old power plants is going to be about a billion dollars a pop. The spike I showed in France's power costs were because 1/3 of their plants had to be shut down for safety inspections after lawsuits from other countries using their gov't funded reactors.

SO EDF, 36 billion in debt, Westinghouse chapter 11, and Toshiba now losing nearly 10 billion a year. That's over half the nuclear power in the world in those three.

And who is using max capacity on wind turbines? I'd MUCH rather use actual output as those studies have used to show the cost of wind turbines than some non-realistic number. Max capacity is a simple number. If your wind turbine is able to run at a max wind speed of 55 mph it will produce X power.

NOBODY is expecting winds to sustain at 55 MPH 24/7. That's why that number is so useless and not used. Reality is winds in Kansas average 8 MPH so your expected capacity is X.

It's like saying "well your car's maximum speed is 155 mph so if we don't make this 300 mile trip in under 2 hours you aren't driving efficiently". Just because you can physically eat 8000 calories a day, doesn't mean it's a bad thing if you are only running at 25% of your capacity.

Most facilities are built to be able to run at max capacity, but few do. If it's not a hot day and A/C's aren't running we just don't keep pumping max capacity out, we cut back, that's not a negative. For example coal plants (though the oldest third run at less than 50%). But for obvious reasons this isn't true on wind. The fact is when comparing ACTUAL capacity to ACTUAL capacity, nuclear is becoming financially unsubstainable. They aren't going under because of some theoretical max capacity for wind, they are going under because of the higher cost per actual kw/hr to produce.

Infrastructure improvements? That's one of the least costly things here. I mean Coal had an entire rail system built for it. Coal and nuclear need millions of gallons of cooling water. Wind you put on farms with dirt roads reaching them by me. Those are kinda the most numerous things we have.

And as for batteries, do we use them for the coal plants running at less than 50%? Do we use them for when we shut down a nuclear reactor? No, other sources take over. Like I said earlier, Kansas wind energy is blowing up. Nearly doubling every year. Up over 25% of total energy now. With how many of those necessary batteries? We are looking 2030 at best as a nation to hit 20% of our energy from wind. 12 years ago the best battery operated car looked and drove like a golf cart. Today it's the fastest production vehicle made. As prices continue to fall there, I'd rather we used battery storage for any energy we create much less only wind energy, it's a bank of energy that can be stored. Instead of increasing capacities immediately on power plants if one goes down, we'd have a reservoir to help balance that.


If you wanted to increase wind turbine usage as a percentage of max capacity that is simple. Just limit the max wind speed allowed by the turbine. That gives you a number you'd like. Limit your turbines to 20 MPH wind speeds or less and they are much closer to running at max capacity right? Granted it would actually have a NEGATIVE effect in turbine generation (if winds exceeded your lower number you would lose actual capacity).

 

[Slash]

I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement. But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that. It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age. Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part. But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.

Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper. While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down. I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options.

With wind already cheaper, and Solar looking not far behind, short of any breakthroughs, I'd not move forward with more nuclear plants. I've not heard much about stabilizing fusion lately, and while the Thorium Salt ones show promise, I believe China is kinda leading the way there with hopes of the first operational reactor in 2030. So while it's future may look bright, at the present it's not a low cost alternative in the next 15-20 years.

What might be is that wind/solar heavily supplements coal/petroleum, and the thorium salt/fusion in another 25 years begins phasing them out and replacing our current nuclear powerplants which kinda would time right in with the 60 year retirements of a lot of our nuclear reactors (heavy construction push on them began in early 1970's).

 

[Skull Pilot]

We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK

I fail to see how our numbers should or even would be different.

The insistence of wind advocates using only installed capacity rather than actual output tells me that none of their numbers are to be trusted.

Installed capacity doesn't have any meaningful value. Output is all that matters when it comes to power generation.

Where wind has been gone to in Europe the cost is always higher than estimated, power generation is always less than estimated.

In order to replace a coal or gas power plant of say 500 Megawatts we would need to install 2000 Megawatts of wind capacity and also some nonexistent grid scale battery system and upgrades to our transmission facilities to convert large amounts of DC power to AC power and to transmit that power over much longer distances than we do now.

None of that is necessary with upgraded nuclear power production since there is a one to one replacement ratio and nuclear plants have an expected lifespan of 60 or more years.

Researchers at MIT predict a 500 MW next generation molten salt reactor could be built for half the price of a same size light water reactor or about 1.7 billion.

Now to install 2000 MW of wind capacity needed to produce the 500 MW output and the cost per MW of installed wind power being about 2 million per MW the equivalent wind power would cost 4 billion so there is a price differential in favor of nuclear with quite a margin so even if nuclear costs more than the estimates there is still an economic argument for it. But we also don't know what grid scale batteries will cost and even if they will work efficiently enough, we have to add infrastructure improvement costs of new roads and transmission lines and realize that these turbines very well might have to be replace as many as three times during the lifespan of a nuclear plat


So with wind we have actual installation costs of 4 times the rated capacity to replace an equivalent fossil fuel plant, a need for as yet untried grid scale batteries, major grid upgrades, reliance on power transmitted over very long distances which in all reality makes power outages more not less likely and those outages will impact a much larger population, an uncertain life span of turbines and the use of significantly more land that could be developed in the future.

Going to a 100% nuclear power generation that could use the existing sites of both coal and gas fired plants would save both installation costs and keep power generation and use more local as well as adding more plants on much smaller areas of land than even our current nuclear plants use would add both security and redundancy to our power grid.

I agree, we don't have the same experience (though Vestas is Danish). So I'm not sure why you felt the need to go with a UK study that's not very solid in the first place.


I am surprised you want to use France as your example. You keep talking France and their Government run nuclear energy program that isn't showing how much it is subsidized. Electricide de France is what? 36 billion in losses now? Aren't they cutting back their power production from 75% nuclear to 50% nuclear over the next 10 years? Didn't they base that on their plants getting older and new plants being 6 years behind schedule as well as the price tripling to over 10 BILLION dollars??

The only reason they kept building it was a 3 billion dollar bailout. How are cost overruns, massive subsidies, and reducing the use of nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar a selling point? Not to mention their governments most recent study that just closing their old power plants is going to be about a billion dollars a pop. The spike I showed in France's power costs were because 1/3 of their plants had to be shut down for safety inspections after lawsuits from other countries using their gov't funded reactors.

SO EDF, 36 billion in debt, Westinghouse chapter 11, and Toshiba now losing nearly 10 billion a year. That's over half the nuclear power in the world in those three.

And who is using max capacity on wind turbines? I'd MUCH rather use actual output as those studies have used to show the cost of wind turbines than some non-realistic number. Max capacity is a simple number. If your wind turbine is able to run at a max wind speed of 55 mph it will produce X power.

NOBODY is expecting winds to sustain at 55 MPH 24/7. That's why that number is so useless and not used. Reality is winds in Kansas average 8 MPH so your expected capacity is X.

It's like saying "well your car's maximum speed is 155 mph so if we don't make this 300 mile trip in under 2 hours you aren't driving efficiently". Just because you can physically eat 8000 calories a day, doesn't mean it's a bad thing if you are only running at 25% of your capacity.

Most facilities are built to be able to run at max capacity, but few do. If it's not a hot day and A/C's aren't running we just don't keep pumping max capacity out, we cut back, that's not a negative. For example coal plants (though the oldest third run at less than 50%). But for obvious reasons this isn't true on wind. The fact is when comparing ACTUAL capacity to ACTUAL capacity, nuclear is becoming financially unsubstainable. They aren't going under because of some theoretical max capacity for wind, they are going under because of the higher cost per actual kw/hr to produce.

Infrastructure improvements? That's one of the least costly things here. I mean Coal had an entire rail system built for it. Coal and nuclear need millions of gallons of cooling water. Wind you put on farms with dirt roads reaching them by me. Those are kinda the most numerous things we have.

And as for batteries, do we use them for the coal plants running at less than 50%? Do we use them for when we shut down a nuclear reactor? No, other sources take over. Like I said earlier, Kansas wind energy is blowing up. Nearly doubling every year. Up over 25% of total energy now. With how many of those necessary batteries? We are looking 2030 at best as a nation to hit 20% of our energy from wind. 12 years ago the best battery operated car looked and drove like a golf cart. Today it's the fastest production vehicle made. As prices continue to fall there, I'd rather we used battery storage for any energy we create much less only wind energy, it's a bank of energy that can be stored. Instead of increasing capacities immediately on power plants if one goes down, we'd have a reservoir to help balance that.


If you wanted to increase wind turbine usage as a percentage of max capacity that is simple. Just limit the max wind speed allowed by the turbine. That gives you a number you'd like. Limit your turbines to 20 MPH wind speeds or less and they are much closer to running at max capacity right? Granted it would actually have a NEGATIVE effect in turbine generation (if winds exceeded your lower number you would lose actual capacity).

I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors. MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications

And tell me which power supply is better one that consistently runs at 90% output or better of peak capacity for decades and will run for an estimated 20 or more years on one fueling using nuclear material we are already storing or one that will put out only 25% of peak capacity for a shorter time frame and will rely on the yet nonexistent grid scale battery storage for it to be practical and now factor in that our electricity needs are bound to skyrocket as we move off of fossil fuels completely.

And yes the new infrastructure has to be factored into the cost of wind especially when you realize that a modernization of our nuclear program would need no such upgrades. And let's not forget the huge tracts of land required for wind turbines

And France has made the same mistakes we have as far as nuclear power is concerned. They stuck with light water reactors and did not research newer better reactors as replacements in hopes of possibly converting to wind and solar. IMO France is in for a shit storm of trouble because of their shortsightedness.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement. But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that. It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age. Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part. But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.

Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper. While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down. I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options.

With wind already cheaper, and Solar looking not far behind, short of any breakthroughs, I'd not move forward with more nuclear plants. I've not heard much about stabilizing fusion lately, and while the Thorium Salt ones show promise, I believe China is kinda leading the way there with hopes of the first operational reactor in 2030. So while it's future may look bright, at the present it's not a low cost alternative in the next 15-20 years.

What might be is that wind/solar heavily supplements coal/petroleum, and the thorium salt/fusion in another 25 years begins phasing them out and replacing our current nuclear powerplants which kinda would time right in with the 60 year retirements of a lot of our nuclear reactors (heavy construction push on them began in early 1970's).

Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars. The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars. So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced. The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option

 

[Slash]

I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors. MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications

And tell me which power supply is better one that consistently runs at 90% output or better of peak capacity for decades and will run for an estimated 20 or more years on one fueling using nuclear material we are already storing or one that will put out only 25% of peak capacity for a shorter time frame and will rely on the yet nonexistent grid scale battery storage for it to be practical and now factor in that our electricity needs are bound to skyrocket as we move off of fossil fuels completely.

And yes the new infrastructure has to be factored into the cost of wind especially when you realize that a modernization of our nuclear program would need no such upgrades. And let's not forget the huge tracts of land required for wind turbines

And France has made the same mistakes we have as far as nuclear power is concerned. They stuck with light water reactors and did not research newer better reactors as replacements in hopes of possibly converting to wind and solar. IMO France is in for a shit storm of trouble because of their shortsightedness.

I'm using real life. Nuclear power plants that are being built NOW. How's that outdated? Because sometime in the 2030's we may have better options if the experiments work out?

And your 2nd question is interesting. 1. Who cares what peak power is. Lets say I build a reactor that puts out 450 MW. And I say it's peak is 500 mw. Then the next day I say it's peak is 1000 MW. I just cut my reactors peak power from 90% to 45% in one day. What actually happened?

I don't see why you are so against battery storage, a technology that some countries are already using with success but an experimental tech is acceptable.

Like I said, maybe in 15 years this might be an option. But right now, it is not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors. MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications

And tell me which power supply is better one that consistently runs at 90% output or better of peak capacity for decades and will run for an estimated 20 or more years on one fueling using nuclear material we are already storing or one that will put out only 25% of peak capacity for a shorter time frame and will rely on the yet nonexistent grid scale battery storage for it to be practical and now factor in that our electricity needs are bound to skyrocket as we move off of fossil fuels completely.

And yes the new infrastructure has to be factored into the cost of wind especially when you realize that a modernization of our nuclear program would need no such upgrades. And let's not forget the huge tracts of land required for wind turbines

And France has made the same mistakes we have as far as nuclear power is concerned. They stuck with light water reactors and did not research newer better reactors as replacements in hopes of possibly converting to wind and solar. IMO France is in for a shit storm of trouble because of their shortsightedness.

I'm using real life. Nuclear power plants that are being built NOW. How's that outdated? Because sometime in the 2030's we may have better options if the experiments work out?

And your 2nd question is interesting. 1. Who cares what peak power is. Lets say I build a reactor that puts out 450 MW. And I say it's peak is 500 mw. Then the next day I say it's peak is 1000 MW. I just cut my reactors peak power from 90% to 45% in one day. What actually happened?

I don't see why you are so against battery storage, a technology that some countries are already using with success but an experimental tech is acceptable.

Like I said, maybe in 15 years this might be an option. But right now, it is not.

We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.

We dropped the ball when we shut down our nuclear research program because a bunch of idiot politicians thought that the China Syndrome was more than just a bad movie.

And wind isn't a viable option right now either because we do not have the grid scale batteries to make it practical as more than a supplementary intermittent power supply. it will take more than 15 years to have wind and or solar ramped up to replace fossil fuels on any meaningful scale.

If we go all in on wind we will have to build more fossil fuel powered plants just like Germany had to build more coal fired plants to take up the slack

 

[Slash]

Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars. The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars. So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced. The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option

It's interesting that you use 4 billion for the wind when the most recent costing I can find shows about 3.5 million for a 2 MW (at 27% usability that is 540kw producing) turbine. Which gets us up to 3.2 billion installed. Where'd you get the extra 25%?

And if we are taking estimates of future costs, based on wind costs dropping at a pace to halve every 8-12 years (expected to continue or so and the closest Thorium plant being 12 years away at best.... that puts a wind estimate by that point at... about 100 million less even if there is no cost overruns to that hypothetical thorium plant.

How much do wind turbines cost?

If you want to expand costs, we can look at actual energy projects vs. their budgets. France, triple the costs and you are there. US (Kemper project) Triple the costs and you are there. Even if you take a great scenario and only double the costs of a 4 year old study, you are more costly than wind today. Much less in 10 years or so when we have the technology.

And yes they would need grid scale batteries, or other power supplies when they shut down for maintenance and safety checks. I mean this is the very first one ever we are talking about.

I don't get your point about the further away bit. That's the joy of what they are doing in Europe, putting wind turbines out on the water. And those costs are really dropping (Vestas has a new 9MW max turbine that is changing the game there). Yup. 40% of American's live near the coast. And we have an energy source that could potentially take up 0 land in the US for them, yet be nearby.


Again, MAYBE that will be the path to go. Maybe billions will be invested and we won't find a consistent low cost way to do it. But right now and for the near future that doesn't exist. China is about 15 years away from potentially having one and that's the closest date I've seen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars. The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars. So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced. The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option

It's interesting that you use 4 billion for the wind when the most recent costing I can find shows about 3.5 million for a 2 MW (at 27% usability that is 540kw producing) turbine. Which gets us up to 3.2 billion installed. Where'd you get the extra 25%?

And if we are taking estimates of future costs, based on wind costs dropping at a pace to halve every 8-12 years (expected to continue or so and the closest Thorium plant being 12 years away at best.... that puts a wind estimate by that point at... about 100 million less even if there is no cost overruns to that hypothetical thorium plant.

How much do wind turbines cost?

If you want to expand costs, we can look at actual energy projects vs. their budgets. France, triple the costs and you are there. US (Kemper project) Triple the costs and you are there. Even if you take a great scenario and only double the costs of a 4 year old study, you are more costly than wind today. Much less in 10 years or so when we have the technology.

And yes they would need grid scale batteries, or other power supplies when they shut down for maintenance and safety checks. I mean this is the very first one ever we are talking about.

I don't get your point about the further away bit. That's the joy of what they are doing in Europe, putting wind turbines out on the water. And those costs are really dropping (Vestas has a new 9MW max turbine that is changing the game there). Yup. 40% of American's live near the coast. And we have an energy source that could potentially take up 0 land in the US for them, yet be nearby.


Again, MAYBE that will be the path to go. Maybe billions will be invested and we won't find a consistent low cost way to do it. But right now and for the near future that doesn't exist. China is about 15 years away from potentially having one and that's the closest date I've seen.

How much do wind turbines cost?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

I used 4 per 2 MW turbine million because installation never comes in at the low end.

And prices of wind turbines will not drop as the demand rises. So I don't know how you can predict lower prices that far into the future. Right now we don't even produce them here. The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Installing turbines offshore will necessarily be more expensive than on land and salt water exposure shortens the life span and increases maintenance costs of all equipment

And the further away your power comes from the more likely and easier it is to be disrupted.

Tell me what would a category 4 hurricane do the the thousands of wind mills you want off the coast of TX or FL or up the eastern seaboard?

And our grid is designed to run on base load power or smooth power constantly delivered at 60 Hz day and night 365 days a year. That is simply not possible with the choppy production from wind power and the daylight only power from solar.

So what will it cost to provide that base load power using wind, solar and the yet to be built grid scale batteries?

So what is the goal here?

To reduce carbon emissions?
To be 100% fossil fuel free?

I daresay that a domestically produced molten salt reactor that will run for 60 years or more and produce 100% emission free reliable power 24/7/365 with absolutely no need to adapt the grid in any and all conditions has a lower total carbon footprint than the multi tonne steel wind towers their components ( especially the rare earth magnets) and the shipping from overseas to this country

 

[Slash]

We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.

We dropped the ball when we shut down our nuclear research program because a bunch of idiot politicians thought that the China Syndrome was more than just a bad movie.

And wind isn't a viable option right now either because we do not have the grid scale batteries to make it practical as more than a supplementary intermittent power supply. it will take more than 15 years to have wind and or solar ramped up to replace fossil fuels on any meaningful scale.

If we go all in on wind we will have to build more fossil fuel powered plants just like Germany had to build more coal fired plants to take up the slack

Prototypes? No. I am talking about deploying them commercially. China with their 2030 goal is the soonest I can find by anyone.

Again where are you getting the wind not being possible? It powers 25% already in some states. Without batteries. The US goal is something like 20% overall by 2030.

Why do all of a sudden we need these giant banks of batteries NOW, when other countries can get 40% of their power from wind without them? What are you saying is the saturation point even? When will that occur? I mean we've got battery packs on the grid with 20-40 MW capacities but those aren't moving quick enough, but the best Thorium has right now is a 10 MW capacity test plant in 2025 possibly?

Like I said, I am all for it. Based on your costs, without overruns, it may even be competitive with wind cost-wise when it makes it to the market. But when do you think that thorium will be powering 1 gigawatt on the US grid? 10? 100?

 

[Slash]

How much do wind turbines cost?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

I used 4 per 2 MW turbine million because installation never comes in at the low end.

And prices of wind turbines will not drop as the demand rises. So I don't know how you can predict lower prices that far into the future. Right now we don't even produce them here. The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Installing turbines offshore will necessarily be more expensive than on land and salt water exposure shortens the life span and increases maintenance costs of all equipment

And the further away your power comes from the more likely and easier it is to be disrupted.

Tell me what would a category 4 hurricane do the the thousands of wind mills you want off the coast of TX or FL or up the eastern seaboard?

And our grid is designed to run on base load power or smooth power constantly delivered at 60 Hz day and night 365 days a year. That is simply not possible with the choppy production from wind power and the daylight only power from solar.

So what will it cost to provide that base load power using wind, solar and the yet to be built grid scale batteries?

So what is the goal here?

To reduce carbon emissions?
To be 100% fossil fuel free?

I daresay that a domestically produced molten salt reactor that will run for 60 years or more and produce 100% emission free reliable power 24/7/365 with absolutely no need to adapt the grid in any and all conditions has a lower total carbon footprint than the multi tonne steel wind towers their components ( especially the rare earth magnets) and the shipping from overseas to this country

It never comes in on the estimated range you say? Always only at the very top end? Any proof to that? Or do you just want to fudge your numbers up for personal reasons?

Why won't the prices drop? They are building them bigger and more efficient. The demand for wind energy is the fastest growing demand of any energy and prices are half what they were 8 years ago. Your logic isn't based in the reality of what is happening.

As for what happens in a hurricane? Well 10 year old tech, they put the windmills in hurricane mode and started them up as soon as Hurricane Sandy's winds died down. And the great thing is, you don't have to shut down and get your people through flooding or disaster to work to turn them back on. 1 of 13 windmills in the Ardrossan wind farm failed with wind speeds over 160 mph (unlike their nuclear power plant that had to be shut down for days). Yes, they make windmills in hurricane area's to withstand hurricanes.

And again, while you are talking about the power range, like I've said Denmark has consistent power, without batteries basing 40% of their electrical grid on wind power. That's decades and decades out for us.

 

[Slash]

The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Now you are just lying here.

I lived in Windsor Colorado for years. I've seen the Vestas manufacturing plant that takes raw materials and churns out wind turbines and put them right on rail cars. Colorado has another 3 of them in the state. Siemens and GE also build in the US. I now live in Kansas where they take those straight off the rails (train is most efficient way to move freight) to the yard then ship them by semi to wherever they will be placed.

Over 500 factories in 43 states, employing 25,000 people are building wind turbines right here in the USA.

What’s the state of American wind power manufacturing? - Into the Wind


Ok, look. I thought we could have a decent debate on this but you are just flat out coming up with lies that aren't in any way reality now. That's not a debate anymore. That's you just willing to use any lie you can to back up your argument. Never mind. Enjoy your day.

 

[Old Rocks]

I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement. But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that. It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age. Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part. But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.

Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper. While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down. I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options.

With wind already cheaper, and Solar looking not far behind, short of any breakthroughs, I'd not move forward with more nuclear plants. I've not heard much about stabilizing fusion lately, and while the Thorium Salt ones show promise, I believe China is kinda leading the way there with hopes of the first operational reactor in 2030. So while it's future may look bright, at the present it's not a low cost alternative in the next 15-20 years.

What might be is that wind/solar heavily supplements coal/petroleum, and the thorium salt/fusion in another 25 years begins phasing them out and replacing our current nuclear powerplants which kinda would time right in with the 60 year retirements of a lot of our nuclear reactors (heavy construction push on them began in early 1970's).

Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars. The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars. So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced. The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option

Estimated by people that have an interest in seeing them built. And when has a nuclear plant ever come in on or under budget? Never.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.

We dropped the ball when we shut down our nuclear research program because a bunch of idiot politicians thought that the China Syndrome was more than just a bad movie.

And wind isn't a viable option right now either because we do not have the grid scale batteries to make it practical as more than a supplementary intermittent power supply. it will take more than 15 years to have wind and or solar ramped up to replace fossil fuels on any meaningful scale.

If we go all in on wind we will have to build more fossil fuel powered plants just like Germany had to build more coal fired plants to take up the slack

Prototypes? No. I am talking about deploying them commercially. China with their 2030 goal is the soonest I can find by anyone.

Again where are you getting the wind not being possible? It powers 25% already in some states. Without batteries. The US goal is something like 20% overall by 2030.

Why do all of a sudden we need these giant banks of batteries NOW, when other countries can get 40% of their power from wind without them? What are you saying is the saturation point even? When will that occur? I mean we've got battery packs on the grid with 20-40 MW capacities but those aren't moving quick enough, but the best Thorium has right now is a 10 MW capacity test plant in 2025 possibly?

Like I said, I am all for it. Based on your costs, without overruns, it may even be competitive with wind cost-wise when it makes it to the market. But when do you think that thorium will be powering 1 gigawatt on the US grid? 10? 100?

25% with constant fossil fuel back up. They learned that in Germany when they had to build new coal plants to take up the slack. Fossil fuel plants that back up wind power have to be run constantly to be ready to keep power flowing when the wind stops they can't just be turned on from a cold start.

and if we wanted to we could have our nuclear program expanding with molten salt reactors in less than 20 years. Right now we have little or no research going on in this country and we are using our money and brain power to help China expand their nuclear program. How much sense does that make?


We've already done the research on them. We already had one up and running. We already have proven them to be walk away safe. One simple design change to convert them to a burner style reactor rather than a breeder and the design is done. And BTW people at MIT have already completed that design change.

And 2030 is less than 13 years away. So 13 years to implement power sources that are emission free do not need the yet to be produced grid scale batteries.

I really can't see how anyone can think an intermittent power source is better than one that produces a constant predictable, reliable output 24/7/365.

There is no way wind and solar can even come close to meeting our energy demands in 30 years let alone the vastly increased demands 100 years from now as we transition to completely fossil fuel free power

 

[Skull Pilot]

I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement. But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that. It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age. Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part. But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.

Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper. While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down. I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options.

With wind already cheaper, and Solar looking not far behind, short of any breakthroughs, I'd not move forward with more nuclear plants. I've not heard much about stabilizing fusion lately, and while the Thorium Salt ones show promise, I believe China is kinda leading the way there with hopes of the first operational reactor in 2030. So while it's future may look bright, at the present it's not a low cost alternative in the next 15-20 years.

What might be is that wind/solar heavily supplements coal/petroleum, and the thorium salt/fusion in another 25 years begins phasing them out and replacing our current nuclear powerplants which kinda would time right in with the 60 year retirements of a lot of our nuclear reactors (heavy construction push on them began in early 1970's).

Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars. The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars. So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced. The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option

Estimated by people that have an interest in seeing them built. And when has a nuclear plant ever come in on or under budget? Never.

You mean just like your grid scale batteries?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Now you are just lying here.

I lived in Windsor Colorado for years. I've seen the Vestas manufacturing plant that takes raw materials and churns out wind turbines and put them right on rail cars. Colorado has another 3 of them in the state. Siemens and GE also build in the US. I now live in Kansas where they take those straight off the rails (train is most efficient way to move freight) to the yard then ship them by semi to wherever they will be placed.

Over 500 factories in 43 states, employing 25,000 people are building wind turbines right here in the USA.

What’s the state of American wind power manufacturing? - Into the Wind


Ok, look. I thought we could have a decent debate on this but you are just flat out coming up with lies that aren't in any way reality now. That's not a debate anymore. That's you just willing to use any lie you can to back up your argument. Never mind. Enjoy your day.

Really?

They produce the steel, mine the rare earth magnets, manufacture the blades all in that one spot or do they just assemble them there?



Foreign companies control wind manufacturing - Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy | Investigative Reporting Workshop

U.S. Imports | Global CCS Institute



Even US companies have much of their manufacturing overseas.

So stop lying to yourself and don't confuse manufacturing with assembly of imported parts

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much do wind turbines cost?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

I used 4 per 2 MW turbine million because installation never comes in at the low end.

And prices of wind turbines will not drop as the demand rises. So I don't know how you can predict lower prices that far into the future. Right now we don't even produce them here. The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Installing turbines offshore will necessarily be more expensive than on land and salt water exposure shortens the life span and increases maintenance costs of all equipment

And the further away your power comes from the more likely and easier it is to be disrupted.

Tell me what would a category 4 hurricane do the the thousands of wind mills you want off the coast of TX or FL or up the eastern seaboard?

And our grid is designed to run on base load power or smooth power constantly delivered at 60 Hz day and night 365 days a year. That is simply not possible with the choppy production from wind power and the daylight only power from solar.

So what will it cost to provide that base load power using wind, solar and the yet to be built grid scale batteries?

So what is the goal here?

To reduce carbon emissions?
To be 100% fossil fuel free?

I daresay that a domestically produced molten salt reactor that will run for 60 years or more and produce 100% emission free reliable power 24/7/365 with absolutely no need to adapt the grid in any and all conditions has a lower total carbon footprint than the multi tonne steel wind towers their components ( especially the rare earth magnets) and the shipping from overseas to this country

It never comes in on the estimated range you say? Always only at the very top end? Any proof to that? Or do you just want to fudge your numbers up for personal reasons?

Why won't the prices drop? They are building them bigger and more efficient. The demand for wind energy is the fastest growing demand of any energy and prices are half what they were 8 years ago. Your logic isn't based in the reality of what is happening.

As for what happens in a hurricane? Well 10 year old tech, they put the windmills in hurricane mode and started them up as soon as Hurricane Sandy's winds died down. And the great thing is, you don't have to shut down and get your people through flooding or disaster to work to turn them back on. 1 of 13 windmills in the Ardrossan wind farm failed with wind speeds over 160 mph (unlike their nuclear power plant that had to be shut down for days). Yes, they make windmills in hurricane area's to withstand hurricanes.

And again, while you are talking about the power range, like I've said Denmark has consistent power, without batteries basing 40% of their electrical grid on wind power. That's decades and decades out for us.

So a bigger turbine will cost less because it uses less steel, less rare earth elements requires less freight to ship it? As demand , however misplaced it may be, increases prices will decrease?

And Denmark? Really? FYI Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe so where is all this cheap wind jive?

Not to mention it's puny compared to the US