Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear Energy For First Time (japantimes.co.jp)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear Energy For First Time (japantimes.co.jp)

Posted by BeauHD on Saturday February 20, 2016 @05:34AM from the there's-a-first-for-everything dept.

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.

24 of 297 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

capacity vs actual by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:capacity vs actual by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-02-20 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
2. Re:capacity vs actual by Rei · 2016-02-20 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option.
  
  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.
3. Re:capacity vs actual by Alomex · 2016-02-20 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:capacity vs actual by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-02-20 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
5. Re:capacity vs actual by ShanghaiBill · 2016-02-20 08:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:capacity vs actual by radarskiy · 2016-02-20 10:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:capacity vs actual by stooo · 2016-02-21 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >> 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.
  
  --
  aaaaaaa
Max Capacity by neonv · 2016-02-20 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re: Max Capacity by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-02-20 06:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Max Capacity by CCarrot · 2016-02-20 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
So? by Glock27 · 2016-02-20 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
1. Re:So? by DamonHD · 2016-02-20 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  http://m.earth.org.uk/
2. Re:So? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-02-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 06:19 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The nice thing about coal is that all the radioactive waste is pumped into the atmosphere.
  That's so much better. No need to store anything.
4. Re:So? by DamonHD · 2016-02-20 06:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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/
5. Re:So? by Sique · 2016-02-20 07:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
6. Re:So? by slashping · 2016-02-20 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:So? by Solandri · 2016-02-20 07:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
8. Re:So? by DamonHD · 2016-02-20 08:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  http://m.earth.org.uk/
Re:Wind will equal nuclear when... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

But you will install them yourself once they introduce live pricing
/. Readers Attack What They Think Headline Says by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-02-20 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative

...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.
Nuclear 80%-90% & reliable. Wind 20%-30% & by raymorris · 2016-02-20 06:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare wind vs nuclear because they are used for different purposes, in a 3-way mix, but ...
> How does average nuclear production compare to its maximum capacity?
Nuclear ranges between 80%-90%, wind is 20-30%.
The benefit of wind is that it allows you to turn down your natural gas plants whenever the wind happens to be favorable.
Nuclear can't be quickly and easily throttled up and down. That's it's one actual weakness - it's reliable, etc. (There was a purely political weakness , but environmentalists are now undoing the damage they did back in 1960s, admitting it was a mistake).
So what you do, if you want clean, reliable power (rather than purely political points) is you have nuclear and hydro for the minimum load, because they are steady. You have wind and MAYBE solar to get what you can, whenever nature wants to allow it, and natural gas to make the difference. You throttle the natural gas plants up and down to meet the difference between current demand and current supply from wind + nuclear/ hydro.
Hydro is nice, in very specific locations, most of which are already in use. So it's an important source of power, but can't be increased much.
First time??? by freya_bacchus · 2016-02-20 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity!