Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- From: nada <dwaltersMIA@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Nuclear normally runs flat out because the capital costs are high
and fuel costs are low, so it makes the best sense economically to run
them flat out.
The same goes for wind farms: nuclear plants cost 10 times the costs of
wind energy per KW nominal power. Nuclear plants are used at 3 to 5
times the load (almost 100% nuclear 20 to 30% wind). So nuclear has at
least twice the capital costs of wind.
10 times? I think not. Not a wind farm in the US has come in under
$800/kw installed. Don't forget, on a per kilowatt basis, EVERY wind
turbine uses 5 times the material on average (concrete, copper,
aluminum, steel) than nuclear. But even so...if we are talking say,
25% for wind in terms of actual KW delivered (true availability) then
the cost per MW or KW is 2 to 3 times *from the get go* than nuclear
in terms of capital costs. So...lets say they build a 1,000 MW wind
farm (none that big have actually been built). And the cost is, to be
generous, is $700/KW installed. A nuclear power is, say, $2100/KW
installed. Then the 'cost' per KW based on installation is the SAME
since they it would take 3 times the number of wind turbines to equal
the nuclear power plant's output. You'd actually have to build at
least 3 TIMES the number of wind turbines to equal the amount of
reliable power from nuclear...with a lot bigger footprint.
When the load of wind turbines gets under 20% it probable isn't
economicaly sound.
Indeed. No one is proposing to build them where they don't get at
least 20%. This is why the entire South East of the US is offlimits to
wind...there isn't enough.
Or use demand side regulation. 80% of energy is used in industry. They
DO shut down plants if the energy costs get to high.
Yes, but it represents a HUGE economic hit whenever this happens.
Workers are laid off, wages are not paid, products and services are
not delivered. No thanks to THAT kind of economic reasoning.
Statistics make that wind is predictable over the long run. There are a
lot of unbalancing factors in the grid.
Yes, but wind represents the single biggest factor. By and large,
areas (states, provinces,countries) are limiting their wind power to
20% of any given grid. It makes zero economic sense to go higher
because you HAVE TO BUILD on demand power to back up wind...which is
fine, makes sense for 20 or so % and under. But when they go over that
and they have to start building coal plants then it's uneconomical and
creates more pollution problems.
The simplest demonstration, that the effect is not a big problem is the
following:
The price of wind energy used to be the base-load(nuclear french)
electricity price, minus 1 ct balancing costs. The minus has droped to 0.2ct.
But only because there is a LIMIT to the amount of wind in the grid
(thank the gods) and it's all back up by French nuclear (and German
nuclear and gas/coal). Pump storage in Scandanavia, and everyone is
happy for the next 5 to 10 GWs or so. That's it. The above balancing
'costs' are arbitrary and are NOT based on market conditions.
Here wind-turbines are scatered over the country-side. This allows for
very small transportation costs (our village of 100, does not need
100MW. (there are 600000 people in the surrounding 100km)).
Good for you. You'll never power the Ruhr with it. If you look at
Britain, you'll see the real effects of their ability to use wind...it
will, if it ever gets that high, stay at 20%. They have no nice French
to sell them cheap nuclear energy (or not a lot of it anyway) to
balance their grid.
I admit, wind is subsidised a lot. But like other subsidies, these are
roamed of by powerful market players (in this case, the grid operators,
and the turbine producers).
Yes, paid for, like all subsidies, by the public. It doesn't bother
me, believe me. Most grids and generators historically are state owned
anyway in Europe, at least until 10 years ago. I'm all for state
ownership. So, you slash the ALL subsidies, profits, interest rates,
etc and you get a aggregate cost. I think they should START
subsidizing nuclear again to get rid of coal.
Siemens(big german energy-plant manufactorer) bought a wind turbine
manufactorer(Bonus) because the profits are so high. Since then wind
power increased 30%, so I bet they didn't cut back on profits (you have
to beg them to sell you a turbine, time to deliver 2 years (short for
other types of electricity plants, very long for wind turbines)).
You are correct. GE makes more money on selling wind turbines than
nuclear. No doubt that will change in the next 5 years.
David
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Methods of Improving Boiler Efficiency
- Next by Date: Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- Previous by thread: Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- Next by thread: Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
