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.

Comments

capacity vs actual

[Anonymous Coward]

My car has the capacity to cover 240 km/h, but never will. I need sleep, the car needs repairs and fuel.

To actually surpass the output of nuclear power will we require a constant hurricane?

In other words, worthless bullshit article posted by our anti nuclear nut, mdsolar. His posts are so shitty I will readily admit to not reading the article. Typically it's just a waste of time.

Re:capacity vs actual

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Demand tends to vary, so nuclear plants are also adjustable.

Uhhh, no. I used to work at nuclear plants for TVA as recently as last year. Nuclear plants are "base load" facilities, meaning they run at 100% (or as close to that as possible) 24x7. The variable loads are carried by other sources like hydroelectric, combined-cycle turbines, and so forth. In fact, nuclear is about the ONLY type of power generation that runs at full throttle during its entire cycle between refuelings.

The 90% factor cited by one of the other posters is more or less correct because commercial generation plants go offline for refueling about once every 18-24 months depending upon how they've been run during that fuel cycle. Things like turbine trips and other unscheduled shutdowns affect when refuelings actually occur, and only about 1/3 of the fuel is changed out every cycle.

Re:capacity vs actual

[stooo]

>> Since nobody has come up with a final solution to the waste problem, the costs are infinite.
Yep. And nuke utilities do not even try to calculate that cost. They leave it to the taxpayers.

Max Capacity

[neonv]

This assumes all wind is blowing everywhere in the world to maximize the capacity of wind power. Unless that is happening, nuclear is still ahead.

Re:Max Capacity

[CCarrot]

actually, nukes are being built all over the world. The west is not, but that is due to too many that do not have a decent science background
 

^^^ This.

Here's an interesting article looking at nuclear power futures from a less west-centric point of view.

From the article link (emphasis mine):

It should not be assumed that reactors will close when their licence is due to expire, since licence renewal is now common. However, new plants coming on line are balanced by old plants being retired. Over 1996-2015, 75 reactors were retired as 80 started operation. There are no firm projections for retirements over the next two decades, but the World Nuclear Association estimates that at least 60 of those now operating will close by 2030, most being small plants. The 2013 WNA Market Report reference case has 74 reactors closing by 2030, using very conservative assumptions about licence renewal, and 272 coming on line, including 108 in China.

Even if half of those planned reactors never get built, that's still a net increase. The west is still pretty spoiled, in that we still have huge tracts of land with relatively few people to worry about. In places where population pressures are more intense, and land is not so freely available, nuclear is absolutely the best (sometimes the only) option if you want to allow people access to any sort of electrical service, not to mention supply the industries that are providing work for your population.

So?

[Glock27]

Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.

Nuclear is a far superior power source, given it's low land use, lack of environmental impact (eyesores, noise, bird/bat kills for wind) and constant output. Nuclear plants should be built out to completely replace coal, at a minimum.

Re:So?

[slashping]

If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.

Re:So?

[DamonHD]

I like nukes (and solar and wind), but let's not forget the tiny tiny issues around radioactive fuel and waste, and the fact that nukes are pretty difficult to turn down to match variable load, and tend to fail in large blocks which causes the grid big problems.

The capacity factor of nukes is not 100% either (and indeed was only about twice that of wind in the UK), though I do agree that comparing name-plate ratings for intermittent renewables with run-always generators is unhelpful.

Rgds

Damon

Re:So?

[Mr D from 63]

If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.

We are. The global nuclear capacity is increasing. And, if it were not for base sources such as nuclear, gas, & coal, wind would not even be a viable option.

Re:So?

[slashping]

Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.

In that case, the number isn't meaningless. You just need to divide it by 3.

Re:So?

[DamonHD]

Actually I'm inclined to regard "baseload" as an artifact of how we have traditionally managed generation systems, eg the way the domestic consumption (and Economy 7 in particular) were encouraged basically to provide demand when factories weren't. Throw in lots of cheap local storage and baseload demand might simply evaporate making nukes hard to use; I know it's not happening yet, but the point is that baseload is an emergent and contingent property, not a fundamental one, IMHO.

And your use of the term "least desirable" is only in the eyes of the grid managers. I don't much like the long-term externalities of some of the non-renewable generation methods.

In any case we're agreed that a mix is good, and sources have pros and cons.

Rgds

Damon

Re:So?

[Glock27]

these days we have in every sense superior renewables.

You're delusional. Wind and solar both have a huge problem with consistent supply. Wind also requires huge swathes of land, and if you want to put it in the ocean it faces severe challenges - salt corrosion and storms.

Power shortages due to over reliance on renewable technologies are inevitable - unless nuclear is in the mix in a big way.

Re:Wind will equal nuclear when...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you will install them yourself once they introduce live pricing

First time???

[freya_bacchus]

I thoght we had windmills an the 17th century already, but guess i was wrong as slashdot is always right