tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post8414810337817019124..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Scientific American: A Second Look at NuclearUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-34956587360246602192009-02-17T22:03:00.000-05:002009-02-17T22:03:00.000-05:00Would like to leave with a notice that windwatch.o...Would like to leave with a notice that windwatch.org is an anti-wind power site. It's bias is obviously anti wind power. It's articles are not peer reviewed in any fashion and this one's capacity factor numbers are contradicted in articles from the DOE's wind power review 2007 and wind power 2030 articles as well as the IEA. So take windwatch stuff with a grain of salt.<BR/><BR/>The windpower 2030 from the DOE pegged the additional costs from wind to be lower than 1c/kWhr. Such costs are lowered with better predictive modeling so that standby generators are kept off when not used.<BR/><BR/>I do find that the overal costs of that are put up are contradictory to other sources. For wind, in 2007, the installed costs went up to the $1700's. The cost per kWhr is totally derived from who knows what since there is no actual reference to any factors like discount rate or what it actually is.<BR/><BR/>It seems like a delivered cost which would artificially lower the price of nuclear since it wouldn't include the interest charges on the large capital costs. A better overal scheme would be to use levelized costs rather than delivered costs. From I believe the IEA, levelized costs would make coal the cheapest, wind second and nuclear trailing third.<BR/><BR/>I found the article to be somewhat balance in what could derail nuclear but way too pessimistic in it's evaluation of alternative generation and technologies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-64876698710846445002009-02-05T17:22:00.000-05:002009-02-05T17:22:00.000-05:00From one anonymous surfer to another: You don't ha...From one anonymous surfer to another: You don't have any of your facts straight. <BR/><BR/>A recent wind analysis specific to ERCOT in Texas showed that 80% of wind's production displaced nat gas but about 20% displaced coal (see top of pg. 21). <BR/><BR/>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcullen/Documents/measuring%20wind.2008.11.13.pdf<BR/><BR/>Here's a whole report on wind capacity factors and how they are generally exaggerated. The report mentions a European average of 21% over the last 5 years. <BR/><BR/>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/boccard-windpowercapacityfactorreality.pdf<BR/><BR/>I'd like to see the source for the German wind cost data. The US is running about 4-8 cents/kWh. That puts wind in a highly competitive position relative to other new plants in the US.<BR/><BR/>We always have nat gas plants on reserve whether wind is part of the picture or not. These plants are literally paid whether they run or not. If the US had a rational demand side management plan that included voluntary real time pricing measures you wouldn't have to rely on reserve capacity so much. <BR/><BR/>Electricity is electricity whether it comes from a nat gas plant or a wind plant. The primary criteria<BR/>that differentiates the generation technologies should always be cost. For wind this should include the costs of maintaining a reliable supply of electricity in the face of wind's variability. These costs are real (about 1 cent/kWh) but they are hardly the deal breaker that they're made out to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-46609270701667567902008-12-28T15:10:00.000-05:002008-12-28T15:10:00.000-05:00this article provides some information that is bas...this article provides some information that is based more on green enthusiasm than on reality. <BR/><BR/>The costs of electricity from windmills is in Germany (22000 MW installed) paid with 9,2 c (euro) about 13 c$ <BR/>The investment costs for windmills given looks very low. It needs to be mentioned as well that a windmill is usually producing on average 17% of nominal capacity a nuclear plant at more than 80%. Though the investment needs to be multiplied x4<BR/>The electricity from windmills is erratic. It does not replace any coal fired plant. These plants needs to be kept on fire in case of low wind. Though this electricity is nearly useless.<BR/><BR/>VandaleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com