|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I was comparing the capital cost of the plants per GW based on under construction plants - the AP1000s mentioned above. The 3-4c figure as far as I am concerned is not applicable to countries that, you know, pay their workers a fair living wage. I'm sure China could construct solar plants for billions less as well. no, 3-4c is for reactors built before chernobyl/TMI and all the madness that has gone with it. (TMI Still. 260m USD for 12MW, instead of 6b for 1000MW - this is the real world number, and you seem to agree. This means 22b instead of 6. That's not five times, but that's roughly four times. For wage costs: Office Thug explained it thoroughly. China can't build solar plants more cheaply, because it really can't import desert land into their confines.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I wasn't suggesting China should be building solar plants instead. I meant that the cost of China building a nuclear plant and Australia building a solar plant are not comparable beasts and Chinese nuclear costs are not equivalent to Australian ones. Ok. For yet another time. We'll now divide in three chunks: Projections Under construction Finished For nuclear, we have "projections" around 2-4b/1GW (china's claiming 1b), under construction around 4-6b/1GW, (china's claiming 2b) and finished around 6-8b. For solar, we have projections basically anywhere, under construction I'm guessing you're gonna tell me, and finished 22b/1GW. The argument for large-scale benefices has yet to be fleshed out, please do so if you want to use it. Oh, and please explain how "Relaxing nuclear regulations" is harder than "Convince the status quo to pay 3-5 times the going rate for electricity", as a political objective.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
quote:The projections are laid out in the Sargent and Lundy's report. Your willingness to believe China's figures for their plants while seemingly treating the S&L report as incorrect or untrustworthy are astonishing. 2012 is now, and the price is not X. How can the projections be right? It doesn't really take a rocket scientist. And if putting a 'china is claiming' between parenthesis is 'willingness to believe figures'... quote:Even assuming the cost of solar remains at 2x the cost of nuclear (comparing the 900 mil cost of the 110 MW roughly 70% capacity factor Tonopah plant, which is not even the cheapest solar plant currently in construction) It's a "In construction estimate"? Compare it with "In construction estimates" of Nuclear, which run at 4-6b/GW. That means: 2-3 times, plus backup, plus grid. Also, handpicking the least expensive is data cherrypicking. If you do it for solar, do it for nuclear, too. And power bills will go down when the investments have been amortized, for both nuclear and solar, unless someone loving hurries up and uses all that sweet, sweet inflation-negative credit to build those plants, whatever type they are.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Pander posted:A question I had is why is this thread so Australian-centric? For an "Energy Generation Megathread" there is way too much space being devoted to solar. I'm lukewarm about wind and even I would argue that it should be talked about more than solar. I get that it theoretically has a chance in Australia, but even that is a marginal sell that seems steeped in nuclear NIMBY more than engineering sense. quote:Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 quote:In terms of safety, I'm involved in the FLEX mitigation strategies for nuclear utilities (the industry response to Fukushima), and the level of safety we're planning for is almost comical. We're going beyond even the beyond-design-basis-emergency-event planning. It's at the "what if something worse than Fukushima happened here" stage, wherein we're projecting any number of crazy scenarios (e.g. Ice storm kills all off-site power, somehow chokes feedwater intake, while all diesel generators on site fail simultaneously, roads are blocked, and the plant needs to go from full-hot to full-safe-shutdown like it ain't no thing). Some plants can't do that yet, so hey still work to be done, but for our plants in central IL the hardest part of my job is trying to picture the emergency that would demand the level of planning I'm doing and not immediately come to the conclusion that our nuke plants would be a minor footnote compared to the rest of the damage that emergency would create. Like "meteor impact" or "New Madrid Fault Shits Itself and Splits the Country from Kansas to Ohio". quote:Chernobyl isn't happening here, I hope nobody pushes that it might. I remember seeing it brought up a few times, and it made me kinda sad. Fukushima is itself a hard sell, considering there were dozens of points where even a single CORRECT human decision would have saved a large amount of the trouble. Since it was among the oldest plants, in one of the most dangerous regions in the world, ignoring good sense and safety recommendations (exposed diesel tanks, inadequate dike), I don't see this happening again. Quantum Mechanic posted:The discrepancy in the projections is due to the various components of the cost savings that have not been investigated or implemented. Economic projections aren't like SimCity tech where you get fusion power in 2050, they're based on a set of assumptions of economic input which didn't happen over the assumed timeline. Those costs are essentially waiting to happen. What is wrong with me saying that those projections were wrong and that you can't use the 2014 value if the 2012 is off by three digits%? The Tonopah plant does not factor in backup/grid, and overbuilding due to correlation in downtime. Also, please link us a reliable source on its costs, because i cannot seem to find any. "So close to completed" is still not valid, because it -just seems- that every power plant in history (ESPECIALLY solar) has a much higher uptime on paper than in reality. I apologize for my missed calculations on 5-times, it's just 2-3 times (depending on data used for nuclear, and standing on your cost statements for the Toopah) Also, nuclear has basically a "Stop being retarded to halve the cost" political button, that is not available to any other generation method. That's pretty much the point of why we're arguing for nuclear with such insistence. I'm still awaiting that link on why large-scale CSTs would be relevantly more efficient than 100MW plants, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Most of the links I can find are for its loan guarantee, and the costs I see are "around a billion." I think the best number given was ~900 million, but I used a billion to be safe. quote:It's literally already producing electricity. It's just not open for commercial use until early next year. quote:The point I've been making is that "stop being retarded to halve the cost" button isn't feasible in Australia. In terms of lobbying, public awareness campaigns and any efforts to slowly move public perception you're probably literally talking billions of dollars and over a decade, during which we'll still be shovelling coal into power stations. Thing is, it needs to be a worldwide movement to cut down emissions. Just Australia going that way won't be nearly enough. Worldwide, nuclear is the only available solution. Since we can do that worldwide, why not Australia too? This, of course, going with a thinking path that excludes the cases in which we actually fail to avoid overproducing CO2, and everyone dies. quote:The S&L report contains information about the economies of scale, roughly 30-35%. Also, the reason why the S&L report is still relevant is because the BZE plan assumes an accelerated timeline of solar investment. The S&L report assumed a particular rate of investment and development, BZE assumes a higher one because the plan is predicated on the WHOLE plan being adopted. As it is we're seeing some popular support (Port Augusta in South Australia are investigating CST as a replacement for its coal fired plants that are being decommissioned instead of gas plants.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Flaky posted:The claim made in the video was that solar PV could generate 100% of Australia's 2020 renewable electricity target of 20% for $25 million within 10 years. That would mean for $125 million you could provide all of Australia's electricity with that technology. So it is only a marginal difference in price, and still way more cost efficient than nuclear. And it's a claim so laughable we'll just ignore it, unless incredibly convincing evidence is made known. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You really fail to understand why it's a ridiculous claim? If we were to accept such 'video' proof, then we all should be circlejerking over magnetic motors, Rossi-Focardi cold-fusion schemes or whatever scam is around today. @Hobo and the megapost: I'm sorry, but the S&L predictions have proved wrong. They are not to be considered until they make another study, which starts off correct data from 2012. 3.5b for 1gw of solar is not real data, is wishful thinking. (They claimed costs to get at 12c/KWh in 2012, and today they are at 27c/KWh. I don't think the data will miraculously align with predictions in the next years, since there are no real hints that will happen - "scale" is especially not one, since we've now accepted that more plants will be made in modules of around 100mw, which have already been built) @Xmas: Welcome in the thread of "Humanity is retarded and so will die"! First, there's no "MW per year". a MW is a unit of power, while a MWh is a unit of energy. One plant with a power of one MW running for an hour produces one MWh. M/G/T are the prefixes for Mega, Giga and Tera, or 10^6, 10^9 and 10^12 (the same as bytes, except that those sometimes use 1024 instead of 1000 as multiplier) To make a comparison, further definition of "output" is needed. On a per-plant basis, coal goes all the way to 2GW, while solar/wind is normally around 1/20 that. On a same-cost basis, coal is typically around 10 of solar cost, 20% of wind cost, and 50% of nuclear cost, considering no carbon laws at all, and really cheap coal. Realistically, it can easily double. The numbers easily change. On a same-land basis, we're still searching for accurate data on coal mining. It's probably less land-intensive than Wind or Solar, and surely much more land-intensive than Nuclear. On a same-deaths-caused basis, coal is loving evil and should die already. nb: "Coal" is the flagship, but oil and gas are more or less the same on all comparisons, except costing a bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:It isn't just 'The Sahara and Australia'. Specific to China, Takla Makan and the US, The Great Basin. Which are already down from 270 to 220. Which are nowhere as near to the main energy need as Australia's plants are. (Long-ranged power transmission is a costly.) Which are not as near to the Equator (Being near gives you shorter nights during the winter, and having to build for the worst case, this is very relevant) This brings us to an interesting point: Solar has to build enough reservoirs and power to be able to run on under 10h/day, since during winter, that's the duration of the day (In Spain, atleast, in Australia varies around 10h-10h20min depending on latitude). It gets worse and worse the further you get from the equator, all the way to practical infeasibility on the Poles. (On an unrelated note, I'm now rewatching Gundam00. How long for space elevators and 99.9% uptime solar, again?)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Australia 9hrs (source) - 11 hrs (source) The problem is not short-term storage, at this point. For weeks, you have around 10h of daylight instead of 12. Basically, go ahead and add a +20% overbuild to Solar (if used as main) only for that. Correlating with the fact that Winter is normally cloudier, and with less direct sunlight, probably even more. I'll strike down a calculation of reduced insolation tomorrow, if anyone wants it. Did you stop to think that usually, grids are engineered in ways that do not include energy making <1000km costantly for relevant quantities? For the Long-ranged power transmission problem, we have gone this already, at your request, in the Nuclear thread. And where would it be written that "Costly" means "Not-efficient"? quote:As to the solar availability data I note you left out: How does this work? Geopolitical problems are relevant for nuclear policy, but not for solar? The countries which actually are in the position of making an effort for grand-scale Solar are "First-world" and perhaps China (But actually, it just wants to sell panels to Europe). Europe has none of those. USA has some in the very south. Australia's good with deserts, and we established that. Japan has none (and like Europe, no land to spare at all) So, the only one in is USA, and carrying great quantities of energy for over 3k km IS costly. Mainly in infrastructure, which you conveniently left out. If we are to ignore geopolitical constrains, "Hey let's stop being retarded about nuclear regulation" promptly makes all this debate useless. And actually, most of the inefficiencies are not due to the distance, but due to voltage conversions for different ranges needed. So, by centralizing production, you're exponentially growing those. (Converting "part" of a power line needs more infrastructure, since the power line has to be divided from start point, or suffer multiple conversions). Plus, you're building the whole power supply in a way that requires power to go through territories subject to earthquakes, hurricanes, cyclones, superstorms, and anything nature or man decides to throw your way. If you want to assert that centralizing the whole power supply of the USA in the central basin is feasible, then it's another debate. In the current situation, i highly doubt it would be anything near feasible. There may be spelling mistakes, it's 6:13 am.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
We just need to fake having invented Fusion. Everybody loves Fusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Magical improvements applied to Solar, but not to Nuclear. Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah, my point is that both technologies are undergoing substantial improvements. I'm sorry if that wasn't communicated well. Also, solar with molten salts can store 8-16h of energy. With basin pumping and other not-efficient-at-all technologies for worst cases, i guess that's doable. Problem is, with waiting technology to improve, it may be too late.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The difference is we've been seeing real improvements to real solar power systems deployed in the last few years, while all the talk from nuclear fantasists is about next-gen reactors that don't exist except on paper. Like what? Applied where? (Honest question, not sarcasm) The standard i'm using for comparisons is the Andasol plant, has anything better been built in the last 3-4 years?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
That's to say that we've got a lot of hazardous crap around the world, and some more isn't a tragedy. It's barely a footnote. Also, nuclear proponents panic? what? (Prejudice, sometimes, but we're usually a pretty fact-based crowd)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:That's the spirit! Why reduce one kind of waste when there's other waste? When you're changing a quantity from 0.00000 to 0.000001, sometimes it's appropriate to freak out. When you're changing a quantity from 1.00000 to 1.000001, perhaps it's not. Radiation is all around the planet, and either it doesn't do anything of note or it causes mutations, which were the reason life itself exists on earth. And the quantity of radiation inserted by nuclear power generation (and nuclear military use, i may add) is really minimal. CombatInformatiker posted:But I do get your point: nuclear waste doesn't deserve the magnitude of bad rap it's getting. I still think that we should strive for renewables providing as much of the energy as is sensible, with nuclear picking up the slack. Power generation has consequences. Those consequences exist for all methods, and Nuclear is an order of magnitude lower than renewables, which are another order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels. CombatInformatiker posted:It's not what I'm looking for because it doesn't have a neutral point of view. If I were looking for lobby material (one way or the other), I wouldn't have come here – the Internet is full of that stuff. Your problem is that the "Mainstream"\"public" opinion is flawed. That's not what you should use as "unbiased". Compared to that "mainstream" opinion, of course a physics book will seem "biased" in the other way: It has actually lost the bias one way. CombatInformatiker posted:I agree. The point I was trying to make was that nuclear is not the happy-forever-all-problems-solved-it's-just-politics answer to the energy question that some Goons here seem to think. There are non-negligible risks associated with it, even though they may be manageable. CombatInformatiker posted:I think the bad public image of nuclear energy comes from the promises of safety from the 50s and 60s, which they couldn't completely keep (sure, technology is a lot more advanced today). It's by far a better track record than Hydro has. Ever heard of Banqiao?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:So if we assume that uranium is 25% of the operating cost, then raising the uranium cost by 5x would roughly double the operating costs of running a nuclear plant. Doesn't sound insignificant to me, unless I am missing something or doing the math wrong. If doubling the uranium price increases by 7%, *5 would mean 135%. Not too insignificant, but not crippling at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Saint loving god, are we still talking about freaking fukushima? If you want to bitch about once-in-a-century events' damage being increased by 1% or so, please look no further than the un-named Fukishima Dam. Nuclear plants are basically dams that don't actually need a river. That also get hosed up two orders of magnitude less. Then, let's look at real math: (Going by Andasol, not counting backup as usual) Andasol produces an average of 21MW, and occupies 2km^2. To get 4700mw, it's about 230 andasols, which is 460km^2, which comes out as a circle with a radius of 12km, which would be permanent as long as it's used, and also bigger than the real exclusion zone needed. (You may be interested in the fact that a forest this size offsets only about 300mw(+/- 100) of electricity production by conventional means.) Aureon fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Nuclear power (Not some methods of uranium mining, which also is really minimal seen the mileage it gets, especially with reprocessing) has never caused "Envinromental destruction". The closed-off zone near Chernobyl had actually become a natural park, since some animals and plants rapidly adapted to the radiation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
And anyway, in a thousand years, either we have the technology to hurl that things in the sun easily or we're extinct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
He's worried in that the average remains the same, but the worst case get worse. I couldn't say why, though. It's not like the worst case is permanent land destruction or planet blowoff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
.. but the conquences of a radiation leak are not very drastic. The worst-case at current tech is not Chernobyl, it's something marginally worse than Fukushima. That means, not very severe. Also, do you calculate the chance you'll be killed in a car crash when deciding whatever or not exiting your home? (Every shareholder on the planet would take a $100m risk with 90% of +$200m and 10% and going to 0)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:This is the goddamned stupidest thing I have yet read in this thread, and that's (sadly) saying something. I know that goons are positively obsessed with white-knighting nuclear power no matter what contortions it requires, but calling the consequences of Fukushima "not severe" is just... do you expect anybody to take that statement seriously? Come on, man. Good-drat-job taking me out of context! Of course the fukushima events are "Severe". They are not severe enough to make risk calculation invalid. Oh, and we'll need a source on that 110t Yen damage, since the whole Earthquake damage was ~350b Especially since (you love that word, don't you?) it's an externality of perhaps the worst natural disaster humanity has suffered in recent times. Also good job on using BIG! SCARY! NUMBERS! Also, good job burning biofuels, higher food prices are exactly what we need! (And no, i'm not saying that the current crop prices rises depend on biofuels: I'm saying that if a substantial % of all crop land was converted to biofuels, or to solar panels (in places lacking deserts and such, such as more or less all Europe), they would rise and create a real disaster.) We all here understand the political, economical and social limitations of the implementation of Nuclear Power. That doesn't mean we also acknowledge that, from an engineering viewpoint, it's the best option we have at the present. If in 20 years we get solar orbital, miracolous solar cells that somehow break the physical limit of 27% or something equally incredible that'll actually solve our problems, good. That may include a variety of options, and all of those should get research funding. Which is not industry subsides, though - and if you want to see how these "Feel-Good" bandaids have worked, look no further than Germany and how it's building coal plants to switch out Nuclear plants. The very moment there's a better option than Nuclear, you won't see a single nuclear supporter here. Until then, for a compendium of roughly every single talking point, we've got the aptly-named thread "The issues affecting the implementation of Nuclear Power" (Which has now been archived, sadly)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:I linked the citation in my post. And even your big, scary 11.5T Yen does not approximate to infinity. quote:Biomass is not biofuels. If you're talking only about recycled biomass, not one produced ad-hoc, then we're talking peanuts and not baseload generation at all. And we still haven't cleared if that plant you visited is 6MWh/year or 6MW. quote:Given the above two notes, I am hardly surprised that you don't understand the distinction between an attack on you for supporting nuclear power vs. a critique of the apparently ideological means with which you do so, especially considering the discussion was related to something as mild as "Hey, you can't treat all power systems equally when it comes to the risk-cost of critical failure, especially from an actuarial standpoint." You may also re-read your post and note that it was No, actuarial tables cannot be applied in all cases. And no, Fukushima-style events aren't severe enough to impede application of actuarial tables. If you didn't think so because you were off an order of magnitude with the events, it's not really my fault. I don't see why a local spike should be relevant enough to make the average invalid, and you still have to explain to us why that would be. Also, refusing to subscribe to widespread ideological unguided hate on nuclear power is hardly "Defending it from an ideological standpoint". We're in an age where lacking a bias that's widely subscribed means being biased, it seems. I've been born in the Chernobyl scare, my own parents blame my heart birth defect on Chernobyl, i live in a country which has banned (twice) nuclear power by referendum, and i assure you, i'm not in the condition to have any pro-nuclear ideological bias. If anything, the contrary. You may notice i always over-estimate damage from nuclear-related incidents. I may also inform you that your "Political wonder" biomass generators are so harshly opposed in Italy that the major of Bologna won a bid for major on the main point "We won't build anything that remotely looks like an incenerator (Because you morons can't understand what's one and what's not one)". If i may note, the difference between a "Biomass plant" and a "Incinerator" is pretty thin. Goons (And really, not even most of them) whiteknight nuclear after a happy thread of 100+ pages full of numbers and other jingle, if you want to look it up. It's not like anyone has gotten up this morning and said "Hey, i think ATOMZ are really a good idea!" "If Ideological defense is a conversation that goes as such:" >>> Hey, we can't apply normal statistics to power generation! >> Yes, we can since the worst-case isn't so severe to be avoided at all costs And then you jumped on me, when i wasn't even responding to your post. And posted big scary numbers (Which may be inaccurate), accused the room of defending a cause for ideological reasons, complained about lack of attention to your visit to a biomass plant, when my point was a polite observation that "No, the worst-case isn't severe enough to warrant all this", which was a milder form of other posters complaining that it's normal to do that even for extremely severe cases. Since we're talking not of a company, but of the energy policy of entire nations, and more accurately, of the whole world, and turning nuclear off means eating up all those "Externalities" from coal, perhaps i had a point. Or perhaps my point wasn't right, but i don't think it warranted a bile-spouting attack (Gooniest, Spergiest poo poo) on my views and good faith. You're the only one trying to apply special rules to Nuclear, here. Perhaps since you're used to it, being part of the US energy regulation system without a background in Engineering or Physics. To reprise, if you think any viewpoint illustrated in the thread isn't substantiated by facts, but rather by an ideology, i would appreciate you explaining what and why that is, as i do not appreciate views based on ideology, especially when they are my own.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:<snipped> All while acting condescending and actually having to be explained what's a MW·h and why it's not a MW/h (And no, i'm not trying to "Nail" you or something equally retarded, i'm trying to explain that whatever you are saying isn't being well understood, however right it may be. There's a failure of communication and nothing else here, but if you want to go forward and hate everyone all the time, who's stopping you) 'fuel' is a subtype of 'mass'. The article says "In the future, we may in someway". In the future in some way, there's about infinite ways to produce energy through methods preferable to today's. And the article linked knows it perfectly well: At page THREE, it talks about fuel crops. And right-out states all the sources found from non-ad-hoc crop would be equivalent to 19% of US' electricity need (And not energy need, since the article is unclear). And no one is against the use of available biomass, but the current trend is "Solar\Wind\Biomass\Whatever will save the world, no need to worry!" and that's the only reason you see skepticism against those. And again, we're all aware of the reasons why nuclear isn't implemented or easily implementable. We've been talking about it for years. This being a public forum, we cannot influence policy. All we can do is actually explain that nuclear has the engineering problems down, and just needs to solve the political\psychological ones, which, incredibly, are proving far more arduous than the engineering ones, with all respect to Opppenheimer and Fermi. I'm not going to bother responding point-to-point anymore, since it seems arguing semantics is all you want. Fukushima's cost amortized against Fukushima plant only or the whole nuclear industry? The 115b estimate or the 11b estimate? Doing worst case, as usual (115b) Against the single fukushima plant ( 877 GW·h, wikipedia sourced but it's well within the expected values of load), it comes out as 13$ to the KWh, not accounting for accrued interest on past earnings. (Which is huge, a dollar in the '70s is 3.5 dollars today at 3% interest - i guess we should do year-by-year calc, it's probably around 10$) This isn't very surprising, considering the plant's planned expenses weren't even a small fraction of 115b, and there were some new reactors that hadn't gone their full life yet (5-6) Against 2012's nuclear power generation (372GW, at 80% load http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm, ~3700TWh, comes out as 3c/KWh. Over the energy produced post-2000, roughly 0.25c/KWh. (Again, not adjusted for accrued interest and inflation, but over 12 years it's not very relevant) Using the estimate without land cost and with the decomissioning near the lower bound, the figures are (5~10) times lower.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
In 15 years, "just" 99.9%, at triple current prices, with 3x overbuilding. Prices will (surely) ease, considering that both renewables are headed down (0.17c/KWh is still bad, but it's a very marked improvement over the current 0.27c/KWh of solar thermal (usual Andasol data)), but if you factor in 3x overbuilding, that's 0.51c/KWh. Plus smart grid expenses, and of course said grid will need 3x overbuilding. (3x overbuilding for 90% of the US' energy need 15 years from now, just from wind.. are we sure there's enough windy places, and that it won't create adverse effects? (3000GW in wind turbines means 300'000 10MW turbines.) It won't rob a substantial amount of land, like solar does, just the few mq for foundations and such if they are in crop fields, and we don't really care about land if they're in non-cultivable places) Problem is that the sites with good wind are limited, it's pretty strange this wasn't explicitly accounted for. Also, tell me the article isn't talking about thermal efficiency of turbines with "You burn three units of coal to get one unit of electricity."?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
80% efficiency in heat->electricity? What? Or it's "80% of the heat reflected is absorbed by water"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 16:06
|
|