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

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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.

Re:capacity vs actual

[radarskiy]

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.

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

/. Readers Attack What They Think Headline Says

[jeffb (2.718)]

...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.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So?

[Sique]

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.