Anyone know how big of a wind farm can you build for the cost of a NUKE plant?

[VoteProgressive]

Serious question.

How many Mega Watts can a wind farm that costs the same a a nuke plant create.

I would like to know the numbers.

[Liberal In Texas]

1. I think that's a very good question.

You would also need to factor in the cost of storing all the waste the nuke produces.

[KansDem]

5. I was listening to Democracy Now! a few days ago...

Amy Goodman was interviewing a doctor (name escapes me) about the fallacy of nuclear being "green." Some proponents believe since no CO2 is released, nuclear power was "clean."

She said that it takes something like 100,000 tons of ore for 1,000 tons of enriched uranium. And all that digging and transporting was done by gas- and diesel machines.


No CO2, eh?

[kristopher]

6. See this post, the information rebutting nuclear industry lies is there

RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKS NOW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[JVS]

10. Well if you want to go down that road, wind turbines don't quite generate the power...

that goes into making those turbines, moving them out to installation point, and sending crews by to maintain them.

[kristopher]

15. That is false.The energy payback for a modern wind turbine is about 3-4 months

Nuclear power's energy payback varies widely by technology. But we know that the "once through" fuel cycle depends greatly on high quality ore that would soon be gone if we ramp up our nuclear fleet. What that means is a dramatically higher rate of CO2 emissions as we move to lower quality ores (about the same as natural gas) and a much longer energy payback time no matter the solution.

[wtmusic]

2. It would take something on the order of 1,000

modern turbines, putting out maximum power, to create the same power as an average nuke plant.

The problem is not the cost - it's the fact that the wind seldom blows enough for the turbines to generate their "nameplate" power rating.

[Sal Minella]

3. I was told (by somebody who had no reason to pull my leg) that the

worst wind in Iowa is better than the best wind in Denmark, and Denmark has come a long way with theirs --

So I'm thinking it's a lack of will, not a lack of wind in the Midwest -- and we do seem to have those big white daisies sprouting up all over the landscape.

Some people think they're ugly, but they're my favorite flower now.

[wtmusic]

4. Wind in the plains states is better than Denmark

but Denmark still has a long way to go:

"It may be a surprise to many people that Denmark is not a very a good place for wind power. Denmark’s national average wind capacity factor is 0.242 for the 5 years ending 2009.

A capacity factor of about 0.40, such as in many areas of the Great Plains states, is required for the costs of unsubsidized wind power to be about equal to the cost of power generated with existing coal, gas and nuclear plants. Great Plains wind power costs will be less than the cost of power of NEW coal, gas and nuclear plants.

<>

The low capacity factor, the transmission losses, the integration fees and the additional grid management efforts all combine to make Danish wind power a rather poor investment; its losses are recovered by raising residential electric rates which have become the highest in Europe. The Danish COMMERCIAL electric rates are kept at about 1/3 of the residential rate for international competitive reasons; an illegal trade subsidy?"

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/51642/dutch-renewables-about-face-towards-nuclear?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[kristopher]

13. Why do you persist in posting unsubstantiated claptrap?

Especially when a small amount of research easliy disproves key elements of the argument? Post is a supporter of nuclear power trying to make a case for his preselected technology, but he totally fails to address the right question; "Which technology produces the least expensive power and is sustainable?".

New wind is far, far less expensive than new nuclear when purchased by the watt and all economic costs are considered.

Nuclear has far greater environmental costs than renewables.

Danish energy agency: http://www.ens.dk/en-us/Sider/forside.aspx

He claims the Netherlands is turning away from renewables, yet here is their statement on the subject.

24 February 2011
The energy strategy contains a raft of initiatives that will reduce the energy industry’s use of fossil fuels by 33 percent in 2020, compared with 2009. The reduction will put Denmark well on its way to complete independence of fossil fuels by 2050.

“Denmark is the first country to present such a specific and ambitious strategy for achieving independence from fossil fuels,” says Minister for Climate and Energy Lykke Friis.

The strategy calls for a significant increase in renewable energy obtained from wind, biomass and biogas which over the next decade will increase the share of renewables to 33 percent of energy consumption, if the initiatives in the strategy are implemented. Doing so would place Denmark among the top three countries in the world in terms of overall increase in renewable energy as a share of total energy consumption. Part of the increase would also rely on increasing use of biogas for heat, and a number of new initiatives will be put forth in order to promote the production of biogas.

By 2020, construction of new offshore wind turbines at the Kriegers Flak wind farm, coastal wind turbines and land-based turbines will more than double wind power capacity in Denmark, to a total of 42 percent of overall energy production capacity, compared with about 20 percent today. Fully 62 percent of electricity generation will come from renewable sources. Meanwhile, strengthened energy efficiency efforts will reduce gross energy use by 6 percent in 2020, compared with 2006 levels. In reaching the goal, Denmark will meet the energy efficiency goals set out in the 2008 energy agreement, and the country will retain its position as a world leader in the area....

http://www.ens.dk/en-us/info/news/news_archives/2011/sider/20110224fromcoaloilandgastogreenenergy.aspx

The ONLY mention of nuclear power is this in their energy policy statement:

Numerous countries reacted to the oil crises by focusing on nuclear power, while Denmark gave priority to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Demand for energy efficient technologies and renewable energy plants has increased significantly and Denmark's early prioritization seems to be a major reason why exports of energy technology since 1990 have risen from almost nothing to 11 percent of total merchandise exports in 2008. At the same time, Danish companies built up significant production of renewable and energy efficient technologies abroad and are today market leaders in key green-tech industries. These strengths mean that Danish technology today can contribute more to achieving the vision of independence from fossil fuels than it could in 1973, when the challenge was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil substantially.
First movers often profit in terms of industrial development and exports, and the Government is working hard to maintain and further develop Danish strongholds in energy technologies. The Government Business Climate Strategy, published in 2009, contains over 20 new initiatives aimed at making Denmark a green laboratory for development and testing of new, green solutions. This comes in addition to a substantial increase in funding implemented by the Government in recent years for energy research, development and demonstration.

[Frustratedlady]

7. All I can say is that there are many wind turbines in the works.

They don't pop up without a lot of planning and time. They will be sprouting up soon.

[blogslut]

8. Here is a kind of camparison

The Largest nuclear power plant in the US is the Palo Verde Generating Station in Wintersberg, AZ. It was commissioned in 1988 and construction costs were 5.9 billion. It has an installed capacity of 3,739 MW.

The largest Wind Energy plant in the US is the Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, TX. It was commissioned in 2009 and construction costs were 1 billion. With 627 turbines it has an installed capacity of 781.5 MW.

[kristopher]

23. You are engaging in a discussion where the lack of data is going to cripple you

There is a great deal of variability on the production numbers for both technologies. For the statistics for nuclear will not include their failures.

"Industry data also exclude another 28 US reactors (21% of the US reactors that were built), because they were “permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems.” They likewise exclude “another 27% <36 of the US reactors actually built, because they> have completely failed for a year or more at least once."


There are a number of other ways the nuclear industry has used their closed society to create distorted data and they are detailed in this article:
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

Received: 10 August 2009 / Accepted: 19 October 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

K. Shrader-Frechette
Department of Philosophy and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 100 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
www.nd.edu/*kshrader
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

As a final example in 2003 MIT produced what was to be the definitive work on the state of the nuclear industry. According to them it was going to cost less than $1500/kw to build by 2010. The actual number was closer to $10,800/kw.

How could such an institution be so wrong? Basically because the authors accept nuclear industry claims at face value. Analysis by credit rating agencies and independent analysts were very close to the actual costs with their forecasts over the same time period.

[blogslut]

27. cool

I'm a wind energy fan. I was just looking up stuff in order to put things in a context that I could understand. Seems to me, it costs less to build, operate and maintain wind farms than it costs to run nuke plants. :hi:

[kristopher]

33. I forgot

See this link for non-nuclear industry data:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[dkofos]

9. About 250 5MW wind turbines running at 50% could replace a 750MW nuke plant.

And would cost a hell of a lot less.

[wtmusic]

11. Close

250 x 2.5MW = 625MW.

Are you willing to turn off your TV and computer when the wind isn't blowing?

[blogslut]

12. Actually

Where I live, a great portion of our electric power comes from wind generation. The only time we've had any sort of loss was a month ago when there was too much wind. The turbines shut down when winds are too high.

[wtmusic]

14. Mine too.

I pay a premium, about 30% more, for "renewable energy".

What happens when the wind isn't blowing hard enough, most likely, is natural gas generation kicks in. That's why T. Boone Pickens was so anxious to build wind farms in Texas - coal generation takes too long to start up, so adding wind power to the grid guarantees natural gas a virtual lock on backup power. $$$.

So by supporting wind power we're indirectly supporting an industry which exacerbates global warming, as well as groundwater pollution and other shale gas extraction issues.

[blogslut]

18. Did you read what I wrote?

I said that the only time we've had a loss was when the wind was blowing too hard. As for natural gas, this is the Texas Panhandle - we've been reliant on natural gas since forever and we don't get it from shale, ours comes from oil production.

As for Boone Pickens, yes, he wanted to start a massive wind farm but that fell through because he was really after our water because we kicked his crony mayor out of office 20 years ago. Mention that man's name around these parts and you're likely to be driven out of town.

[wtmusic]

21. Yes

Though wind power contributes to the mix, it's backed up - often - by natural gas. That's the way the grid works.

When the wind is blowing too hard sometimes power spikes are responsible for outages, although newer turbines shut down automatically.

[blogslut]

25. Well, we have newer turbines

And like I said, we have been reliant on natural gas since before I was born - which was 50 years ago. We don't have to frak to get ours. It comes from our oil fields. I don't know what kind of mess you got going on in California but here in West Texas, we're cleaning up our energy sources quite nicely and we're adding more turbines by the year.

[wtmusic]

26. Don't get me wrong.

West Texas is one of the few places in the country where wind makes sense. :thumbsup:

[Liberal In Texas]

17. The idea is to have farms in many different areas.

Electric power comes off a grid with many stations supplying the power to the grid. With enough wind generators in different areas, the wind is always blowing someplace to supply energy to the grid. This could also be supplanted with solar farms.

[wtmusic]

20. Problem with that scenario: lots of wire.

"Texas is in the midst of a wind-power boom, and at the heart of it lies a conundrum: While plenty of ranchers are eager to host wind turbines, few want the unsightly high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry the power to distant cities running through their property.

The lack of transmission lines — and the relatively low price of natural gas — has thwarted the ambitions of wind-power advocates to expand the use of this alternative energy source in Texas. The oilman T. Boone Pickens, for example, bet heavily on wind a couple of years ago, ordering hundreds of turbines and announcing plans to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Panhandle at a cost of up to $12 billion. He later scaled back, canceling some of the turbine orders, giving up his land lease and saying he was looking elsewhere to build.

Construction of the line — a project of the Lower Colorado River Authority that will run from Schleicher County to a substation near Comfort — should start next year. Last year, vigorous opposition, by landowners, wealthy newcomers and old-time families, succeeded in derailing plans for another line that the state had wanted to build through the area. Instead, the existing electric infrastructure will be upgraded to carry a greater load. The Public Utility Commission, which is overseeing the process, has also canceled plans for an additional segment of the Hill Country line discussed at the meeting Thursday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html

[Liberal In Texas]

35. Well, yeah, you have to have transmission lines.

Which brings up what they're doing a lot of in Germany. People get tax subsidies for putting solar panels on their houses. The excess power generated also puts power back into the grid. Although currently being highly subsidized, the program has prevented the need for Germany to build more nukes. And there was a plan to retire the existing ones by 2022 but cutbacks in subsidies for the solar program had delayed that.

Decentralized power generation may be the way of the future, every house and business could have solar panels quietly pumping electricity on to the grid.

[underpants]

22. The wind is always blowing

especially in certain places like South Dakota or on large bodies of water

[WinkyDink]

16. Dead migrating birds. Low-level constant maddening hum. Blighted landscape. AND

no way to operate at full capacity for dependable lengths of time.

http://middletown.patch.com/articles/middletown-issues-moratorium-on-wind-turbine-applications

http://libertyville.patch.com/articles/residents-want-stricter-wind-turbine-ordinance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7377641/Noise-complaints-about-one-in-six-wind-farms.html

[blogslut]

19. The dead bird thing is a myth

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php

[meow mix]

24. maybe a bladeless design is in order... Windstalks! (and lots of em)

http://www.gizmag.com/windstalk-concept/16647/

[jtrockville]

34. Windstalks have a "downside"

I hear you can turn 'em upside down and put 'em in the ocean: Wavestalks!

http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html

...
Núñez-Ameni also reports that the firm is currently working on taking the Windstalk idea underwater. Called Wavestalk, the whole system would be inverted to harness energy from the flow of ocean currents and waves. The firm’s long-term goal is to build a large system in the United States, either on land or in the water.

[meow mix]

37. nice

put em everywhere ya

[SidDithers]

28. How big does a wind farm have to be to produce the same energy as one nuclear reactor?...nt

Sid

[uppityperson]

30. Kicking for this question as I was going to post it also

[kudzu22]

31. That's the important factor

Japan doesn't have the land to build a big enough wind or solar farm to power the country. They have a choice between fossil fuels, nuclear, or going dark. Nuclear isn't perfect but in some instances it's the best option available.

[kristopher]

32. Do you have an actual resource assessment to substantiate that claim?

I seriously doubt it.

[truedelphi]

29. Why build a wind farm? When you can now have wind turbines

Installed on top of your home, that look almost identical to attic fans.

Cost of these things comes down every six months or so.

This way you don't take up thousands of acres imperiling bird species when they migrate, and you push the Big Utility Players out of the loop.

[Drew Richards]

36. Really there is only one answer...

When a Wind turbine breaks...It doesn't kill all life for 300-100,000 years in a 10 mile radius...

So what is the Real cost ratio?