'Wind power beats nuclear', says AD (Netherlands)

[jpak]

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/07/wind_power_beats_nuclear_says.php

On-shore wind turbines will overtake nuclear power plants as the cheap alternative to fossil fuels, according to a draft report leaked to the AD newspaper today.

According to the report by the Energy Research Centre (ECN), the cost price of electricity production – around 6.6 euro-cents per kilowatt hour – is already comparable.

However nuclear power is more expensive if the additional costs of security against terrorist attacks is taken into account. Meanwhile technological advancement will make wind power increasingly cheaper in the coming years.

The report was commissioned by one of the social and economic council (SER), one of the government’s most important advisory bodies, which is currently looking into whether the Netherlands should expand its nuclear power production. It currently has just one plant located at Borssele.

<REALLY not much more>

[wtmusic]

1. Except when there's no wind. nt

[jpak]

2. onshore wind turbines operate 60-80% of the time - and offshore winds are more reliable

and there is no *deadly* spent fuel to dispose of either...

[wtmusic]

3. If that means a couple of days without power - any time - they are useless

Until a reliable mechanism is developed to store excess energy, wind will require a backup source, which will most likely be nuclear with its deadly fuel anyway.

It takes over 1,000 turbines running at full capacity to generate the power of one medium-sized nuclear station. What about the environmental footprint of building/maintaining those turbines?

[Kolesar]

7. That's the day to go down to the river and beat your clothes on a rock

You do have a point. I think that consumers are going to invest in batteries for when they are becalmed and become extremely aware of the price of electricity when we adopt pricing based on the price of electricity at the moment.

How about a programmable television that won't operate when the price of electricity peaks? A V-chip and now an E-chip. Mom and Dad won't miss hearing the kid's shows blaring in the other room.

[wtmusic]

9. Personally I would love that kind of world

if it weren't for this damned internet. Everyone should have access, all the time.

And maybe refrigeration.

[jpak]

8. And nuclear plants require refueling (several weeks of downtime) and can trip at any moment

thus they too require "backup"

Wind *and* solar *and* biomass *and* tidal *and* hydro together can produce firm, predictable and dispatchable power - without the need for extensive storage capacity (which can be hydrogen/fuel cells, V or NaS batteries or flywheels).

...and what is the environmental footprint of the (non-Dutch) uranium mines need to fuel those nuclear plants????

[wtmusic]

11. So much for the cheap alternative

Now we've got five technologies required to provide steady power. We also have a huge infrastructure, a corresponding-huge industrial process required to assemble/maintain that infrastructure, and a truly colossal environmental footprint--enough to dwarf the mining necessary to supply one reactor.

[jpak]

13. and I forgot wave power - the other of the "three sisters" of Dutch marine renewables

wind, tidal and wave power.

None of which could be credibly be described as high value targets for terrorists...

Wind and wave farms would also be de facto artificial reefs that would protect and nurture fish species that require structure.

And where is that Dutch spent fuel repository anyway????

And where is that "non-huge" grid needed to distribute power from central nuclear stations???

edit: also forgot...the EU has proposed building a Supergrid to wheel power from widely distributed offshore wind farms. This would greatly reduce the need for storage as power produced in excess in one location could be provided to areas where wind speeds had diminished...

www.trec-uk.org.uk/resources/airtricity_supergrid_V1.4.pdf

[diane in sf]

27. The more power sources the better--single solutions are so old paradigm.

[wtmusic]

32. If the sources are not viable they are not a solution

Wind power leaves a much larger environmental footprint than nuclear, per watt generated.

I want someone to acknowledge that there will be 3000 rusting eyesores (by FogerRox's calcs) dotting the American landscape to replace one medium-sized nuclear reactor. Once they are there, they stay there -- even when they stop generating. It isn't economically viable to remove them. The desert around Palm Springs is full of windmills which don't even turn in the wind, and have been sitting there for years.

[mcg]

20. New sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries make wind power more reliable

New battery packs powerful punch
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery_N.htm

[wtmusic]

21. That's one to watch

What they don't mention in the article is that the batteries have to be maintained at 625°F:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

[TlalocW]

4. Don't worry

They're setting up a giant nuclear-powered box fan offshore to guarantee plenty of wind. ;)

Actually, this is pretty cool news.

TlalocW

[wtmusic]

6. Technology...amazing

Why can't they just use batteries to help turn the turbines? :shrug:

[Dogmudgeon]

34. Now, if they maneuver a broken-off chunk of Antarctica in front of it ...

... that area could dispense with the A.C. for a few years.

--p!

[texastoast]

10. But there usually is in certain places

Many certain places.

[donsu]

5. kick

nt

[valerief]

12. I don't understand the comments here. Can't we get "most" of our power

from wind turbines and "the rest" of our power from conventional means?

[texastoast]

14. Yes, we certainly can

and there is a tremendous amount of money to be made converting from fossil fuel to wind and solar. And with tenacity and foresight, the current conventional methods will become the antiquated methods.

These old Texas ranchers who embraced the oil and gas business decades ago (and by doing so gave up their potable water from their aquifers) are now putting up the windmills on many a ridge. I'm happy to see it.

[FogerRox]

15. Every day in the US, enough wind blows to power the world

Every day in the US enough sun hits the ground to power the world.

just thought I'd throw the flip side down at the feet of the naysayer/s.

Now to be fair, I will now make a more balanced point:
One might have to build 1 gigiwatt of wind capacity to get 1/2 gigiwatt base load.

[wtmusic]

17. When you convert all that sun to electricity you let us know

btw your wind farm's "base load" is 0 gigawatts when the wind doesn't blow.

The wishful thinking around here is unbelievable.

[FogerRox]

23. Gee, you are right, some days, there is no wind in the US.

wtmusic,

Let me break it to you like this.

Install 1 GW of wind across the US. On any given day, lets say 1/2 the turbines dont get enough wind, but the other half does. In other words...statistically your 0 GW cant happen. It would mean the weather stopped, across the entire US. I'm sure you dont mean to infer that.... right... ?

SO if 1 terra watt of wind is installed acroos the US, actual industry numbers suggest a minimum base load of about 1/3 TW.

[wtmusic]

31. Actual industry numbers from a nationwide wind power grid?

They don't exist. Or maybe you can provide a link.

[FogerRox]

35. Asking for something that doesnt exist. cute debate technique. ANd now back to our program....

google should be your friend

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf

www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp

We've got decades of wind data in this country. Its good enough for Industry and the US Goverment, but not you, and if that doesnt suit you too bad.

[wtmusic]

36. Thanks for the link -- very informative

"Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation.

Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is some concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants."

www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp

and not a word to back up "actual industry numbers suggest a minimum base load of about 1/3 TW", as you claimed.

You're doing a remarkably pathetic job of supporting your argument.

[Dogmudgeon]

38. Installed *capacity* is about 75 GWe

The actual load estimates range from under 10% to what the industry is shooting for, about 35%. So that's about 7.5 to 26 GWe. And the way many wind farms are attached to the grid, the intermittency can cause problems, too. But that's a technical issue, and better computerization of energy traffic management will improve this greatly.

I think 35% is way too high a use estimate, too. The last time I checked, there hadn't been an installation east of the Mississippi that has even achieved 30%. Denmark averages around 10%, and they often have to "dump" electricity into the grid. This has both good and bad points.

These points shouldn't be taken as absolute condemnations, not by a long shot. Wind power certainly has its uses. But implementation is still weak, technical problems are not being worked on with the diligence they deserve, and there has been a massive campaign to convince people that wind power has no downside although there are still many problems with wind energy that need to be solved.

Just because wind is being "sold" with clip art of flowers and meadows and clouds doesn't mean that there aren't some big environmental drawbacks.

But when anyone mentions them, the cry of NIMBY! rises, instead of bringing together engineers and construction experts to hammer out the bugs. We ought to bring the engineers and construction experts together instead of pretending the bugs don't exist.

--p!

[wtmusic]

39. One angle which IMO has been underinvestigated

is the possibility of using giant wind turbines. I'm talking about ones which would dwarf the current so-called "giants" like that in Toronto with 24-meter blades -- ones which might have a blade length of 300-400 meters and rise 2km into the sky. Windmills of this scale would afford several advantages:

1) They could efficiently incorporate flywheels to even out their power generating capability, acting as temporary "batteries"
2) They would occupy less square footage and use less raw material/watt generated
3) They would centralize power generation and thus minimize line losses and make maintenance more efficient

Disadvantages:
1) Visible from a great distance
2) Possibly dangerous to aircraft/birds

[Dogmudgeon]

41. That would be kinda heavy

Even if the required amount of concrete for the pedestal doesn't increase cubically (e.g., twice as high is 8 times the concrete, 3:27, etc.), there is likely to be a fall-off in the amount of power returned by the generator relative to the blades. The big turbines now have 70-meter blades, so at a 2000 meter scale, there is no reason why the blades could not be 900 meters long.

They would not turn very fast, but in a brisk wind, the tips would still be traveling at close to the speed of sound, maybe faster.

But I think that the best way to improve wind plant efficiency is to site them 10-100 miles offshore. While load efficiency is only about 10-35% on land, over water that increases to 80% in some cases.

An even bigger problem is posed by uneven production and rapidly changing grid load. Even Denmark's offshore turbines offer "jerky" power output, and losses are high. As you pointed out, we should be putting a lot of work into energy storage technology to "even out" the output, especially from land-based turbines. But, we should also be moving away from inland turbines, and not planning anything offshore with less than 1 GW of rated capacity.

--p!

[wtmusic]

42. The pitch of the blades would be computer-controlled

to keep their speed below that of sound. Or better: additional generators/flywheels would engage to increase the load, generate more power, and slow the blades.

Why would there be a fall-off in the amount of power? With hydroelectric generators the efficiency only increases with size.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. Fall-off in power

There might NOT be a fall-off in power.

The speed of sound might impose a limit on blade speed. It might not. There may also be a practical limit on building gearboxes of the reqired size. Increasing the load -- by changing gear ratio, as is done with many turbines -- may not be practical. Or, it may be even easier. But we have no experience.

None of my "objections" should be taken as authoritative; I raise them because I am problem-oriented -- as well as problem-solving-oriented. And I expect most, if not all, of the problems to yield to skill and creativity in engineering.

--p!

[FogerRox]

40. Did you go to the wrong link, of the 2 links ?

Yup.

Please excercise some due diligence.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. You seem to have the wrong definition of "base load"

'base load' is a power supply that operates constantly, regardless of conditions: Coal, nuclear, geothermal and most hydro is base load: biomass (including landfill gas) can be set up as base load, but would be better used as on-demand. Wind/wave, solar and tidal aren't base load, since they're not constant - they depend on having the right conditions.

[FogerRox]

22. If you build 1 GW of wind turbines, you may get 1/2 GW of base. Consistantly.

Its not like on one day... theres no wind in the US. that doesnt happen, what does happen is that on one day, some areas have no wind. Other areas have wind, so someplace, somewhere, you will generate from wind.

Thats a given.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. That's stretching the definition of "base power"...

...into a rather zen-like concept, don't you think?

[FogerRox]

29. If 0ne TW of turbines can consistantly provide .3 TW electricity to the grid

if its not base ...then what do you call .3TW consistantly delivered to the grid..... ?

.3TW is .3TW, whether it comes from coal fired generation or Wind. Once the .3 TW is on the grid, do you think a utility would care ? I think not. Just because the .3TW comes from a different geographic areas over time instead of a fixed location, as with a coal fired plant doesn't change the realities that 1 TW of turbines can provide .3TW 24/7 365. With weather fronts rolling across the US, that figure might go up for a couple of days, then return to .3TW.

No offense, but I think you are just now grasping what the wind industry, Internationally, has known for more than a decade. Thinking on the scale of a wind farm, sure, you get days when that locale is calm. But thinking on the scale of a continental grid, brings one into a different realm.

[razzleberry]

37. non-FIRM power, more importand distinction than base/peak

non-firm power, less valueable

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Correctamundo

Most aerogenerators operate at about 20%, not 50%, of their rated capacity. The industry likes to shoot for 35%; AWEA's literature uses that figure in several of its factsheets. The nature of wind power requires a slightly different mind-set, since coal plants run at about 80% of rated capacity, natural gas at about 90% and nuclear reactors over 90%.

But we can't use it if we don't generate it. Installed world capacity is around 75 GWe, about 15 GWe output, the equivalent of 20 "average" coal plants or 15 nuclear plants, which have a capacity at around 1.0-1.5 GWe (there are, of course, larger and smaller power plants).

Less than 1% of the world's electrical supply comes from the wind, and the financial world is loath to put up money for anything other than coal and petroleum burning technologies. This is currently the major problem with moving away from burning fossil fuels for base-load energy.

--p!

[FogerRox]

24. Yeah, good on ya, though some think the wind just stops on some days

precluding any electrical generation.

They must have that weather stopping machine perfected.

SO if we install 1 terra watt of wind in the US, we can expect say.... 1/3 terra watt constant ? If The industry likes to shoot for 35%. Sounds like 1/3 TW base load to me.

The concept that somewhere in the US the wind is always blowing, seems to have escaped a few posters.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Hmmm.

The concept that somewhere in the US the wind is always blowing, seems to have escaped a few posters.

The concept of "transmission losses" seems to be a bit thin on the ground, as well.

And, last time I looked, the US grid was having enough problems distributing generation that stays in one place: Watching it attempt to cope with 333 GW that moves around with the weather would be great fun.

Fun for me, anyway. I'm not connected to it. :)

[FogerRox]

30. In 2007 the grid is in sad shape, but then there isnt that much wind Watts anyway

Comparing a projected # of Watts delivered by wind.... decades in the future... to the condition of the US grid in 2007 seems to be a LSD trip. I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. Ah, my mistake.

I thought climate was happening now, not "decades in the future". If we've got twenty or thirty years to sit around with our thumbs up our arses waiting for a high temperature superconducting grid that can haul power from "somewhere in the US", then I guess there's no problem.

[applegrove]

16. That is good to know.

[losthills]

25. Wind, Sun, and Waves...

These are the energy sources that last for all time. That do not pollute. That do not make anyone sick. That do not cost any money. Using these as our main sources of energy puts us in tune with nature as good stewards of our planet...