Re: Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

On Jul 6, 3:25 pm, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Jul, 16:44, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Jul 6, 5:34 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 5 Jul, 22:52, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 5, 11:57 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1. Pumped Storage: There is a lot of potential for pumped storage in
Norway - probably 10s of GW days. And the alps have a lot of hydro
which can be enhanced to pumped storage. Currently this is used follow
demand with a nuclear base. But it can also inversely follow wind
supply.

The problem with pumped storage operations outside of the wind driven
grid is that of simple economics. Why will the operator choose to buy
wind generated power when there is considerable excess of french
nuclear baseload power for sale? The operator can maximize revenues
by pumping with cheap excess baseload,and selling at peak rates. The
operator can even get a discount from the baseload plant, if he allows
the supplier to cut the power at short notice (turning the pumped
storage operation into spinning reserve).

Obviously there isn't enough French baseload to go around.

The French have a problem with all of their nuclear power being slow
to respond to demand changes. If there is a lot more pumped storage
built, they can price their power to have the pumped storage operators
follow loads for them.

Economical ways of storing electrical energy will kill wind, dead, for
any grid connected purpose; unless someone decides that money is no
object.

If there were a perfect way to store electricity, and an efficient
market, the power source with the lowest average cost would win. No
one knows whether in 12 years wind or nuclear will be cheaper, but it
looks like we'll get both.

Nuclear power is cheaper, now.

Yes, but now is not the issue - all Western nuclear power has long
since amortised its build costs.

That is not what I meant. Right now, in a proper licensing
environment that does not allow frivolous lawsuits to delay startup
after the plant has been built, a thousand megawatts of installed
nuclear power costs less than a thousand megawatts of installed wind
turbines. It is not only cheaper, but has a higher capacity factor,
so it will make more power/money. The preference for gas turbine
plants is solely for the speed at which they are built.

On a purely economic basis, the
nearest rival to nuclear is coal. Where wind has not been subsidized,
it is not built.

You could say the same about nuclear, though I'm fairly optimistic
about the new builds.

Where subsidies dry up, the wind turbines stop spinning.

You mean stop being built

I have heard that in some locales, after the subsidies dried up, the
electricity from a wind turbine was not worth the costs of
maintenance, so they stop spinning. I would like to be misinformed,
but I am told that many of the wind turbines in the Altamount pass
were left for dead when the problem was not an easy fix. The big
subsidy was forcing utilities to buy all available wind power at the
peaking rate. Once that madness ended, from the perspective of
minimum acceptable rate of return, maintenance money diverted to other
investments was wiser than keeping wind turbines running.

What you are suggesting is that some unspecified
developement will reduce the cost of wind power-- without reducing the
cost of anything else

On shore wind is cost competitive. But like nuclear, its capacity is
limited. We haven't built any large scale offshore wind farms yet, but
I'd expect their cost to fall with scale.

If it was cost competitive, there would be no need for any incentives
to get them built. You can only get so much scale benefits from wind,
as there is an upper limit to unit size



Until then, the power source with the lowest marginal cost has a role
for baseload power. Nuclear has low marginal cost, but wind is even
lower.

Can you prove that?

The wind may be free, but you still have to maintain the wind turbines.

Not on a day to day basis you don't. Most wind turbines are left
unmanned for weeks at a time.

Nuclear power plants need a lot of maintenance and fuel.

You have to compare the maintenance costs on a per megawatt*year
basis, so you are comparing the maintenance costs of one nuclear plant
with several hundred, if not thousand, wind turbines.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Im hearing bad things about breeder reactors
    ... >> the cost of nuclear power. ... > through LWR's at ten times the fuel cost. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: John K. Sutherland demolishes the economics of wind power.
    ... who believe that wind power is a key to any rational social ... If each windmill were to operate at full power for the entire year, ... nuclear or coal, or hydro. ... Similar projects with similar very high costs relative to nuclear ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: affordable power for homes
    ... it seems a windmill would be a good ... > for those days when there was not enough wind. ... > enough to fill up the storage while you were still using power. ... It might cost them far more to put a power ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: affordable power for homes
    ... it seems a windmill would be a good ... > for those days when there was not enough wind. ... > enough to fill up the storage while you were still using power. ... It might cost them far more to put a power ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... There's some dispute among economists over how ... comfortable worst-case scenario for power generation. ... But wind seems to be an even better alternative. ... But as far as I can tell storage would add perhaps 50% to the cost of ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)