Slashdot Mirror
Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear Energy For First Time (japantimes.co.jp)
mdsolar writes: The capacity of wind power generation worldwide reached 432.42 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2015, up 17 percent from a year earlier and surpassing nuclear energy for the first time, according to data released by global industry bodies.
The generation capacity of wind farms newly built in 2015 was a record 63.01 GW, corresponding to about 60 nuclear reactors, according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. The global nuclear power generation capacity was 382.55 GW as of Jan. 1, 2016, the London-based World Nuclear Association said.
The generation capacity of wind farms newly built in 2015 was a record 63.01 GW, corresponding to about 60 nuclear reactors, according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. The global nuclear power generation capacity was 382.55 GW as of Jan. 1, 2016, the London-based World Nuclear Association said.
Nuclear plants are being decommissioned and not replaced. The opposite trend is in place with wind power. Regardless of the assumptions that went into the article, the trend is crystal clear.
So, here is another indication of the ignorance of reporters and those who push the agenda, as capacity does not equate to electrical output. With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%, and avg global wind capacity is closer to 30%, you need about 3 or 4 times wind capacity in GW to produce an equivalent amount of electrical output in MWh.
And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option. Wind and solar ride on the backs of traditional sources of power.
They also don't talk about how much this PR "victory" cost, and will continue to cost as the windmill replacement cycle begins.
With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%
Erh no. They reach 90% in the summer but throughout the year they tend to run at 60-70% capacity.
...film at 11.
Folks, it clearly says Power Capacity. Power, not energy, and capacity, not average actual output. The headline and summary are precise and correct. But if you're deprived of your usual stalking points -- people trying to report power in kWh or energy in kW -- I guess you have no choice but to accuse the authors of not really meaning Exactly. What. They. Said.
Actually, in the US, most nuclear units have had their licenses extended beyond the initial 40 year term. In fact, there are over 70 units that have done so. Only a few have shut down, each for different reasons and each near the end of their original design life.
"And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, ..."
Yes, but only if it's not summer and the river is to low to cool the reactor or in winter when the river is frozen or if there's another 'incident' shutting down the plant for months or a typhoon is expected or a large wave...(sic)
Not to mention, when a wind turbine fails catastrophically, there's a dent in the shrubbery and not a relocation of 100.000 people for a couple of thousand years like when a reactor fails that way.
Another boon is that wind turbines don't produce material for dirty bombs that you have to guard for a couple of hundred thousand years.
Actually no, AFAIK.
Only one nuke in the UK *can* even load follow, and never has. (My uncle was chief counsel that got it through the public enquiry; I'm really not against nukes at all.)
France has a nuke fleet that can nominally load follow, but how much depends on the age of the fuel and ranges from ~50% down to 0 IIRC, for an average of maybe 25% across the fleet, which is one of the reasons that nukes are limited to ~75% of French generation capacity, ie so that enough following can be provided by other means (given a typical 2:1 ratio between high and low demand). That is the best of my understanding, and I ran it past the UK's former energy minister recently who I was sharing a platform with on nuclear electricity generation, and he did not disagree, though maybe he was just being polite.
So, if even the French have not been able to get a fully load-following fleet I think it must be very hard to do.
So, again, I am simply not anti-nuke. Nor am I a frothing fan-boy. Nukes do not solve all problems and are most useful as part of a mixed fleet IMHO.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Actually, nuclear pairs pretty poorly with wind. Nuclear isn't very responsible to rapid changes. Natural gas and hydro are what usually pair with wind.
It's possible to make rapid response nuclear plants, but most aren't.
Basically, you're confusing baseload power and peaking. Peaking has of course always been with us, and always will, regardless of generation type, because even without supply fluctuations, there's also demand fluctuations (rather major ones, actually). Note that there's a number of ways to reduce supply fluctuations and to better fit the demand curve. Long distance power transmission spreads out demand peaks and evens out supply intermittency. Mixing different types of intermittent power makes a much more stable overall power. And of course there's also storage, of a wide variety of types, including some built into plants themselves (such as solar plants with thermal storage).
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Duh! If I'm going to contradict someone I make sure to double check my figures, which I did, using statistics from the EIA.
Just because you are used to making things up without sources doesn't mean everyone else does too.
Yes, that's why Hinkley Point needs to secure 35 billion in subsidies just to get built, and still EdF and CGNP Group wonder if they can weasel out of the construction contract. Even nuclear friendly France, China and UK bound together seem not to be able to built a nuclear reactor that can compete with solar and wind on a free market.
Yes, but only if it's not summer and the river is to low to cool the reactor or in winter when the river is frozen or if there's another 'incident' shutting down the plant for months or a typhoon is expected or a large wave...(sic)
These events, while they have happened, have only been notable because they almost never happened before or since. There's a reason uptime figures for the nuclear industry are routinely above 90%, and that includes time spent in shutdown for scheduled maintenance and refueling.
Not to mention, when a wind turbine fails catastrophically, there's a dent in the shrubbery and not a relocation of 100.000 people for a couple of thousand years like when a reactor fails that way.
In the entire history of commercial nuclear power (almost half a century) only two events have taken place that required any sort of relocation. One of those was due to operators deliberately operating the plant outside of specifications and disregarding all safety regulations with a plant design that is no longer used because of its instability (Chernobyl). The other was at a plant that was hit by a massive earthquake followed by a massive tsunami. Tens of thousands were killed by the quake and tsunami. Zero deaths were attributed to anything nuclear.
Reports of nuclear deadliness have been greatly exaggerated. No doubt on purpose, to fit a particular agenda.
Another boon is that wind turbines don't produce material for dirty bombs that you have to guard for a couple of hundred thousand years.
This is a political failing, not a technological one. We have the ability to burn waste actinides, extracting useful energy, closing the nuclear fuel cycle, and leaving very little behind that is dangerous. President Carter banned R&D into this technology back in the 1970's and it's been a political hot potato ever since.
If uninformed alarmists like you would ever shut the hell up and actually learn something about what you're denigrating, you might see that idea reversed. But whole generations have been raised on the idea that nuclear = bad so I doubt that's going to happen. You're comfortable in your ignorance.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Nuclear capacity factor is about 90%.
Wind capacity factor is about 25%. It varies from about 20% in non-choice locations to about 30% in good areas. Offshore is higher. Especially good areas offshore often hit 40%, while the best areas (off Scotland) can hit 60%.
The way load works, nuclear and coal provide base load. Renewables provide whatever they can on top of that. Gas and especially hydro handles the dynamic load - making generation match actual demand. So nuclear not being good at following the exact load curve is not a problem. It only becomes a problem if you're like most renewable fans who insist that only hydro, wind, and solar generate all the electricity.
The best way to match demand is (at least) one base load source + (at least) one dynamic generation source. Variable (unpredictable) sources like wind and solar can be added n on top of base load as an option. They reduce the base generation requirement, but put more stress on dynamic generation since it may be called upon to cover a shortfall in the variable source. Consequently, they're the least desirable power source - you still need a base load generation source and a dynamic load generation source.
Easy: actual generation varies according to demand, and demand is highest in the summer.
No. Nukes are expensive to build but cheap to run. The marginal cost of power is very low. So when demand drops, you shut down your gas turbines so you don't have to pay for the fuel, then you shut down coal. If you have spare capacity in your reservoir, you next shut down hydropower. Nukes are the last power source that you shut down, and there is no place the relies exclusively on nukes. Even France, which is 75% nuclear, sells their excess power to Germany and Britain rather that scaling back output.
Yes, that terrible, evil Renewables lobby, which buys politicians and pundits, hires think tanks, and pays internet trolls... oh wait, that's what the nuclear and fossil fuel industries do. The rest of us just want a less polluted world. So spare me your talk of "agendas".
Table 6.7.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Not Primarily Using Fossil Fuels, January 2013-November 2015: https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
From Jan 2013 to Nov 2015, the lowest capacity factor for nuclear power was 77.6%. Only two months were below 82.5%. The yearly averages were 89.9% and 91.7% for 2013 and 2014.
So EIA statistics refute your claim that you said was based on EIA statistics.