Slashdot Mirror

Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?

Mod this up. There's real data there instead of grandparent post with no citations.

Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?

And if we go to the actual data at http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB... and not a cached version we get a different view.

Just a few, easy to find sources of the multitudes of tax credits. Not to hard to find unless you are specifically not looking for them.

http://energy.gov/savings/busi...

http://en.openei.org/wiki/Corp...

Get real. That chart comes directly from the Report of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). But you know more than they do, right? How about the OpenEI Transparent Cost Database? They reach the same qualitative conclusion. How about the UK 2010 estimates? The French 2011 estimates? The Analysis from different sources? They are all right there on my referenced page, complete with citations of the original sources.

Give up the starry-eyed stuff.

Nuclear does indeed manage near 90% on average. Sources: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants/US-Nuclear-Capacity-Factor, http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/ (click on capacity factor, which also confirms your wind capacity number by giving it a median of 38%).

He also specifically said unplanned maintenance, not planning maintenance.

Your link only asserts that for renewables and doesn't address the expected life of nonrenewables at all. In fact, the first link in the calculator you provide shows the LCoE of nuclear being on the low end of the sources (comparable to geothermal, wind, and hydro), and PV being the highest of all.

I don't understand your numbers, your analysis, or what you're trying to conclude. Why didn't you just publish a link to the DOE Transparent Cost Database, which is linked from the page you cited?

http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

From the Levelized Cost of Energy visualization, I see these costs for nuclear and solar PV, in $/kWh:
* nuclear .. range of 0.04 to 0.12, median 0.06
* solar PV .. range of 0.15 to 0.59, median 0.28

There, that's more understandable.

Wake up, Rip Van Winkle. It's not the 1970s anymore - while you were sleeping, innovation and technology has brought us advancements in wind and solar that are a far cry from what you remember.

See all these? Each marker represents a wind farm. Not necessarily a single wind turbine, but a group of turbines.

It's not a con. It's not a lie. This energy does work today, it may even power your computer so you can read Slashdot whether you realize it or not.