kW is a rate of energy delivery or production. When talking installed capacity, it represents the highest rate that source can deliver energy, or what would be considered 100% output for that source at a given instant in time.
kWh represents actual energy produced, as it is energy delivery rate x time. KPH is a rate of distance traveled. Just like KPH times hours = distance traveled, KW x hours = energy produced.
I hope that helps you understand why cost comparisons only make sense using watt*hours. I do understand why you like to avoid discussing in those terms, as it is sometimes a harsh reality when talking cost.
You make no sense, I don't think you realize what you just said. I am just stating facts, not coordinating anything. There is a reason why credible comparisons of energy cost are done per MWh . If you are not comparing levelized cost per MWh, you are not comparing the cost of energy produced.
KW is a rate of energy production, like Mile per Hour (MPH) is a rate of distance travel. If you want to know how many miles you traveled, you need MPH times hours, and if you want to know how much energy you produce, you need to know KW times hours, of KWh. Its simple math.
Again, KW does not represent an amount of energy, KWH does. Its easy to look up how this works.
I like the thought. We often learn more from failure than success. And, in this day of hyping the most minute accomplishment as a breakthrough, its refreshing to see something that comes across as measured and humble.
Power consumption has flat-lined or declined in a lot of areas, a large part due to reduction in industry. A strong economic uptick could quickly change that, and over time as population grows it will also increase. I suppose LEDs would offset some of that, but more generation will be needed, particularly if you want to replace fossil generation.
No, you don't really understand the difference between capacity and production. If you care about production you MUST have the h.
A 1000 KW solar facility producing for 5 hours in a day generates less energy than a 1000 KW nuclear plant generating 24 hours in a day. The hours matter to those that matter.
Now, if you don't care about how much energy is produced and used, and only care about "how big it is", then you can stick with Watts.
Electical energy is measure in KWh. If you care about what is actually produced, not just the rating, then you need KWh. I care about what is actually produced from the plant, as should anybody doing a cost comparison.
3 Gorges produces 23GW. Hinkley Point is designed to produce 3.2GW. So that is ten times 3 Gorges based on cost/power.
Maybe instead of building this new power plant, they should just convince more people to switch to LED light bulbs.
Everything is cheaper in China and financing costs don't get accurately included, just a labor translation and you'll see a big difference. But yes, 3 Gorges is a low cost energy source as is Hydro in general. Of course, if we look at project like Ivanpah, everything looks great.
Switching to LED doesn't change the generation mix, or curb the huge demand increase projections China has, not even close.
Oh, my. Its really even worse. UK has its highest demand in the winter, at a time when solar output is equivalent to close to 0.5 hrs full sunshine. Lets be generous and assume 0.75 hours. Nuclear, which schedules refueling outages for off-demand periods, operates close to 24 hrs a day in winter, but lets assume an occasions runback and only use 22 hrs average. You'll need 30 times capacity, not 8 times as I stated, to generated enough power to keep the lights on in the UK.
Dammit, and I also forgot to take into account the efficiency of storage. If storage is assumed to be 80% efficient (optimistic, I think) then add about 20% more solar capacity required. $512B * 1.2 = $614B.
Good point, so at $2/W the solar option would cost around $ 40 billion. No fuel required. Guaranteedly no near-extinction events. I'd say let's go for solar.
No, that is just the cost of the generating capacity. 2 * 3,200 = $64B, not 40. Then, if you want to use that power year round triple the cost for storage and added transmission infrastructure. Then, since solar has an approx 30 year life spend that $64B again in 30 years. And don't forget that about half that goes to China and produces relatively few good jobs, as compared to a high domestic product content for nuclear and thousands of high paying jobs for educated employees.
The interest is included already in the stated cost. The insurance is included in the levelized cost of operation, which is projected to be below $100MWh even by the critics.
I was just responding to the previous post which was using a 35GW number.
If you want to compare to Hinckley Pt, it takes 20GW (or probably a lot more considering solar insolation in GB) of solar to produce equivalent electrical production as 3.2GW Hinckley Pt.
Having a desalinization plant out in the open water is kind of stupid, IMHO. Its much easier to have the equipment on land, it doesn't take a lot of area, and piping in the water requires little infrastructure with minimal piping actually in the water. And you can more easily connect to land base power sources for backup if needed.
I'm not claiming that solar desalination would satisfy the needs of California, but that it would be a good usage match for intermediate-scale wind and solar as power sources. A number of California coastal towns are already building small desalination plants for their own water supply.
Just be aware what it takes. I did a quick calc and for a town of 20,000 using water conservatively, it would take 6 football field size solar arrays to supply water for personal use. That doesn't include any other water needs, like fire fighting, industry, etc.
I think if you calculated the amount of water that could be desalinated from a football size array of solar panels, you would be surprised how little it it.
Slashdot Mirror
kW is a rate of energy delivery or production. When talking installed capacity, it represents the highest rate that source can deliver energy, or what would be considered 100% output for that source at a given instant in time.
kWh represents actual energy produced, as it is energy delivery rate x time. KPH is a rate of distance traveled. Just like KPH times hours = distance traveled, KW x hours = energy produced.
I hope that helps you understand why cost comparisons only make sense using watt*hours. I do understand why you like to avoid discussing in those terms, as it is sometimes a harsh reality when talking cost.
You make no sense, I don't think you realize what you just said. I am just stating facts, not coordinating anything. There is a reason why credible comparisons of energy cost are done per MWh . If you are not comparing levelized cost per MWh, you are not comparing the cost of energy produced.
KW is a rate of energy production, like Mile per Hour (MPH) is a rate of distance travel. If you want to know how many miles you traveled, you need MPH times hours, and if you want to know how much energy you produce, you need to know KW times hours, of KWh. Its simple math.
Again, KW does not represent an amount of energy, KWH does. Its easy to look up how this works.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
I like the thought. We often learn more from failure than success. And, in this day of hyping the most minute accomplishment as a breakthrough, its refreshing to see something that comes across as measured and humble.
Oh, I thought you meant LEDs in China.
Power consumption has flat-lined or declined in a lot of areas, a large part due to reduction in industry. A strong economic uptick could quickly change that, and over time as population grows it will also increase. I suppose LEDs would offset some of that, but more generation will be needed, particularly if you want to replace fossil generation.
No, you don't really understand the difference between capacity and production. If you care about production you MUST have the h.
A 1000 KW solar facility producing for 5 hours in a day generates less energy than a 1000 KW nuclear plant generating 24 hours in a day. The hours matter to those that matter.
Now, if you don't care about how much energy is produced and used, and only care about "how big it is", then you can stick with Watts.
Electical energy is measure in KWh. If you care about what is actually produced, not just the rating, then you need KWh. I care about what is actually produced from the plant, as should anybody doing a cost comparison.
No 3 Gorges estimate here?
3 Gorges was projected to cost about $22.5B. The actual cost is believed to be a little below that.
3 Gorges produces 23GW. Hinkley Point is designed to produce 3.2GW. So that is ten times 3 Gorges based on cost/power.
Maybe instead of building this new power plant, they should just convince more people to switch to LED light bulbs.
Everything is cheaper in China and financing costs don't get accurately included, just a labor translation and you'll see a big difference. But yes, 3 Gorges is a low cost energy source as is Hydro in general. Of course, if we look at project like Ivanpah, everything looks great. Switching to LED doesn't change the generation mix, or curb the huge demand increase projections China has, not even close.
Oh, my. Its really even worse. UK has its highest demand in the winter, at a time when solar output is equivalent to close to 0.5 hrs full sunshine. Lets be generous and assume 0.75 hours. Nuclear, which schedules refueling outages for off-demand periods, operates close to 24 hrs a day in winter, but lets assume an occasions runback and only use 22 hrs average. You'll need 30 times capacity, not 8 times as I stated, to generated enough power to keep the lights on in the UK.
Dammit, and I also forgot to take into account the efficiency of storage. If storage is assumed to be 80% efficient (optimistic, I think) then add about 20% more solar capacity required. $512B * 1.2 = $614B.
I was wrong, I forgot capacity factor, so the solar at $2/w would not cost $64B, it would cost $512B, the add the other facts stated above. Sorry.
Good point, so at $2/W the solar option would cost around $ 40 billion. No fuel required. Guaranteedly no near-extinction events. I'd say let's go for solar.
No, that is just the cost of the generating capacity. 2 * 3,200 = $64B, not 40. Then, if you want to use that power year round triple the cost for storage and added transmission infrastructure. Then, since solar has an approx 30 year life spend that $64B again in 30 years. And don't forget that about half that goes to China and produces relatively few good jobs, as compared to a high domestic product content for nuclear and thousands of high paying jobs for educated employees.
The interest is included already in the stated cost. The insurance is included in the levelized cost of operation, which is projected to be below $100MWh even by the critics.
Yes, it would take many of them, and however many, it would take 8 times as many 3,200MWe solar facilities or the equivalent to power the UK.
I was just responding to the previous post which was using a 35GW number.
If you want to compare to Hinckley Pt, it takes 20GW (or probably a lot more considering solar insolation in GB) of solar to produce equivalent electrical production as 3.2GW Hinckley Pt.
FYI, the plant's design life is 60 years, not 35, and based on nuclear power history it will likely last quite a bit longer than 60.
You need the 'h' to do a true cost comparison. Many people who know that intentionally avoid it though.
Because it takes 200GW of solar capacity to produce the same amount of electrical energy as 35GW of nuclear.
Facts don't matter when bashing nuclear. Not even the fact that this is two plants, not just one.
Try again. Even high end cost estimates from critics are under $100/Mwh, which equates to $0.0096/Wh, and is lower than many other sources.
It took me exactly 30 seconds;
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n...
But, $35 is more than estimated, and it is actually two plants, not one.
No 3 Gorges estimate here?
If you assume 50 G day per person, that is only enough water for 200 people.
Having a desalinization plant out in the open water is kind of stupid, IMHO. Its much easier to have the equipment on land, it doesn't take a lot of area, and piping in the water requires little infrastructure with minimal piping actually in the water. And you can more easily connect to land base power sources for backup if needed.
I'm not claiming that solar desalination would satisfy the needs of California, but that it would be a good usage match for intermediate-scale wind and solar as power sources. A number of California coastal towns are already building small desalination plants for their own water supply.
Just be aware what it takes. I did a quick calc and for a town of 20,000 using water conservatively, it would take 6 football field size solar arrays to supply water for personal use. That doesn't include any other water needs, like fire fighting, industry, etc.
I think if you calculated the amount of water that could be desalinated from a football size array of solar panels, you would be surprised how little it it.