Comments on: The real costs of wind (and solar) power (and nuclear, too). http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/ An independent scientist's observations on society, technology, energy, science and the environment. "Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." - Carl Sagan Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:19:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Joffan http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-975 Joffan Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:00:30 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-975 20% might be a little low, but between 20% and 30% is about right. For example, the Spanish electricity grid operator reported an output from wind farms that was 24% of peak capacity for 2008. And Spain has a lot of wind turbines. 95% might be a peak output figure that some group of windfarms will reach occasionally, and as you illustrate, that will cause problems for the stability of the grid, because it is a huge power swing to go from say 20MW to 400MW of power input in a short time. 20% might be a little low, but between 20% and 30% is about right. For example, the Spanish electricity grid operator reported an output from wind farms that was 24% of peak capacity for 2008. And Spain has a lot of wind turbines.

95% might be a peak output figure that some group of windfarms will reach occasionally, and as you illustrate, that will cause problems for the stability of the grid, because it is a huge power swing to go from say 20MW to 400MW of power input in a short time.

]]> By: B A Phillips http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-952 B A Phillips Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:31:00 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-952 I'd love to see your comments on hot rock technology since although it would not generate as much electricity from one place as nuclear, it could be highly dispersed, therefore less transmission lines. Utilizing existing oil and gas wells - I'm from Alberta, Canada, and applying a recycling amount of water first injected into earth crust to be turned into steam that is captured from a parallel well. That generates electricity, heat, supports itself. What's wrong with that? B A PS - I'd love a direct reply to my email. I’d love to see your comments on hot rock technology since although it would not generate as much electricity from one place as nuclear, it could be highly dispersed, therefore less transmission lines.

Utilizing existing oil and gas wells – I’m from Alberta, Canada, and applying a recycling amount of water first injected into earth crust to be turned into steam that is captured from a parallel well. That generates electricity, heat, supports itself. What’s wrong with that?

B A
PS – I’d love a direct reply to my email.

]]> By: LSL http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-948 LSL Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:13:43 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-948 How much will be paid by kwh to an insurance company to ensure the consequences of a nuclear disaster? How much will be paid by 7.000 years of custody of nuclear waste from a nuclear plant? How much will be paid by the dismantling of the nuclear plant at the end its life? How much will be paid by kwh to an insurance company to ensure the consequences of a nuclear disaster? How much will be paid by 7.000 years of custody of nuclear waste from a nuclear plant? How much will be paid by the dismantling of the nuclear plant at the end its life?

]]> By: Brian Mays http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-943 Brian Mays Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:53:44 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-943 Rachel, please show me <em>one</em> country that is able to demonstrate a capacity factor of over 25% for its wind turbines. Denmark cannot. Germany cannot. Spain cannot. These countries are the leaders in Europe for this technology. If they cannot make it work better than that, then why should you expect anyone else to? The burden of proof is on you. Rachel, please show me one country that is able to demonstrate a capacity factor of over 25% for its wind turbines.

Denmark cannot. Germany cannot. Spain cannot.

These countries are the leaders in Europe for this technology. If they cannot make it work better than that, then why should you expect anyone else to?

The burden of proof is on you.

]]> By: Rachel L. http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-941 Rachel L. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:43:32 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-941 Wow. 20%? try changing your figure there to about 60% and you'll still be shooting way low for many areas. Some of our wind parks here in Cali produce around 95% and are told by the local electric company to stop producing because they don't have enough transmission lines to transfer all that power. Also, what kind of turbines are we talking about here? How old are they? There is a huge difference in cost and potential production between a Nordtank 75 and a V90, try over 2900 kw of power difference. So obviously if you build a 1 GW park of tiny 75 kw turbines, you'll pay an enormous amount in manpower and parts constructing, maintaining, and repairing all those turbines. However, if you construct a 1 GW park of GE 1.5's or V90's, your costs will fall dramatically while your ideal production will skyrocket. So instead of making assumptions lets post some facts. Wow. 20%? try changing your figure there to about 60% and you’ll still be shooting way low for many areas. Some of our wind parks here in Cali produce around 95% and are told by the local electric company to stop producing because they don’t have enough transmission lines to transfer all that power. Also, what kind of turbines are we talking about here? How old are they? There is a huge difference in cost and potential production between a Nordtank 75 and a V90, try over 2900 kw of power difference. So obviously if you build a 1 GW park of tiny 75 kw turbines, you’ll pay an enormous amount in manpower and parts constructing, maintaining, and repairing all those turbines. However, if you construct a 1 GW park of GE 1.5’s or V90’s, your costs will fall dramatically while your ideal production will skyrocket. So instead of making assumptions lets post some facts.

]]> By: Luke Weston http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-789 Luke Weston Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:29:36 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-789 The brief answer is that the capital cost is by far the majority of the cost of nuclear power. Mantainence costs for wind farms as compared to nuclear power? I haven't seen detailed analysis, but remember that you're comparing the cost of maintainence for a single nuclear power reactor plant to the total maintainence costs for approximately 1200 wind turbines. The cost of fuel, for nuclear energy, is relatively minimal, since the nuclear fuel is such a concentrated source of energy. Similarly, the sensitivity of the cost of nuclear energy to the uranium market is minimal - however, on the other hand, energy systems based on coal, and especially natural gas, are quite sensitive to the cost of the fuels. The brief answer is that the capital cost is by far the majority of the cost of nuclear power.

Mantainence costs for wind farms as compared to nuclear power? I haven’t seen detailed analysis, but remember that you’re comparing the cost of maintainence for a single nuclear power reactor plant to the total maintainence costs for approximately 1200 wind turbines.

The cost of fuel, for nuclear energy, is relatively minimal, since the nuclear fuel is such a concentrated source of energy. Similarly, the sensitivity of the cost of nuclear energy to the uranium market is minimal – however, on the other hand, energy systems based on coal, and especially natural gas, are quite sensitive to the cost of the fuels.

]]> By: Jimbo Jazz http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-785 Jimbo Jazz Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:42:07 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-785 But you're only taking into account one-off capital expenditure! How about the cost of fuel? I'd say it's zero for wind and solar. How much is it for coal or nuclear, anyone? How about maintenance costs? How do you reckon nuclear power plants compare to wind farms? Not very favourably, I'd suppose. How about the security costs? Shall we put a figure on those as well? I'm fine with the idea of comparing apples with apples, but you could do that yourself too. But you’re only taking into account one-off capital expenditure!

How about the cost of fuel? I’d say it’s zero for wind and solar. How much is it for coal or nuclear, anyone?

How about maintenance costs? How do you reckon nuclear power plants compare to wind farms? Not very favourably, I’d suppose.

How about the security costs? Shall we put a figure on those as well?

I’m fine with the idea of comparing apples with apples, but you could do that yourself too.

]]> By: JP http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-776 JP Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:10:23 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-776 "One wind farm just doesn’t compare to one nuclear plant - you’ve got to appreciate the actual amount of energy output being generated." Of course not. One wind farm and one nuclear power plant don't compare in cost, either. Per MW the cost difference is not that great. Most recent estimates blow nuclear out to around US$7,000 per kW, or A$10b for a 1GW reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates As others have pointed out, there's also the cost of inputs/waste processing to consider. For nuclear/coal/gas, not only do you have to pay for your input materials, but as we've seen in 2008 this exposes you to great financial risk as you are exposed to price movements of your inputs. The world economy was brought to its knees by $120/bbl oil, but nobody seems to see energy input costs as a risk that it's better (and perfectly possible) to avoid. Secondly, your calculation of decades to get wind or solar capacity built rests on the assumption (and at least you've acknowledged it) that you can't build two or more plants at once. In other words, it's utter nonsense, as no such build-one-at-a-time-only limitation exists in the real world. “One wind farm just doesn’t compare to one nuclear plant – you’ve got to appreciate the actual amount of energy output being generated.”
Of course not. One wind farm and one nuclear power plant don’t compare in cost, either. Per MW the cost difference is not that great. Most recent estimates blow nuclear out to around US$7,000 per kW, or A$10b for a 1GW reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates

As others have pointed out, there’s also the cost of inputs/waste processing to consider. For nuclear/coal/gas, not only do you have to pay for your input materials, but as we’ve seen in 2008 this exposes you to great financial risk as you are exposed to price movements of your inputs. The world economy was brought to its knees by $120/bbl oil, but nobody seems to see energy input costs as a risk that it’s better (and perfectly possible) to avoid.

Secondly, your calculation of decades to get wind or solar capacity built rests on the assumption (and at least you’ve acknowledged it) that you can’t build two or more plants at once. In other words, it’s utter nonsense, as no such build-one-at-a-time-only limitation exists in the real world.

]]> By: steve goodall http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-636 steve goodall Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:45:40 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-636 Where does the information from Luke Wilson come from about solar panels "it takes modern solar cells 10 to 20 years to produce as much energy as they consumed to be produced." I buy it but would like to see the study if there is one, thanks, steve Where does the information from Luke Wilson come from about solar panels “it takes modern solar cells 10 to 20 years to produce as much energy as they consumed to be produced.” I buy it but would like to see the study if there is one, thanks, steve

]]> By: Luke Weston http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/the-real-costs-of-wind-and-solar-power-and-nuclear-too/#comment-604 Luke Weston Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:58:27 +0000 http://enochthered.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-604 S.T.S. Student: Good comments. Thanks for the comments. To quote the following from the web page in question: "The cost of Nuclear Fission Power is dominated by the capital cost of construction of the plant. Proponents of next generation, (3rd generation), Nuclear Power plants project construction costs of around $1000 - $1200 per KW (Westinghouse AP1000, Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, Advanced CANDU Reactor, South Africa HTGR), significant increases in Uranium efficiency and substantial increases in operating life of the plant (60 years)." So, they said $1000-1200 per kW of nameplate capacity, and I said $2000 per kW of nameplate capacity - the estimate I used, $2 billion for 1000 MW of nameplate capacity, is actually a little higher than what they've used, and more conservative - but still, I fail to see much of a discrepancy. I think it would probably be fair for you to say that the http://nuclearinfo.net figures for the projected cost of advanced Gen. III+ LWR builds are perhaps a little out of date - the general consensus I've seen over the last year or so is certainly more than $1000/kW, you're right about that. That said, however, the http://nuclearinfo.net site is a good site, and I do recommend it for your studies of this topic. Thanks for the additional wind farm example. Data with real capacity factor measurements rather than guesstimates is always good. As you've shown, if you look at the pessimistic high end of the costings for new nuclear build, you're looking at costs where wind power would become competitive. In such a scenario, I've got nothing against wind power, but it remains to be seen if it would or would be practically scalable up to this scale of electricity generation, where it is actually replacing coal or nuclear generation. If you wish to compare wind with solar, for example, it certainly tends to be clear that wind energy is a more economically competitive option, between the two. S.T.S. Student: Good comments. Thanks for the comments.

To quote the following from the web page in question:
“The cost of Nuclear Fission Power is dominated by the capital cost of construction of the plant. Proponents of next generation, (3rd generation), Nuclear Power plants project construction costs of around $1000 – $1200 per KW (Westinghouse AP1000, Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, Advanced CANDU Reactor, South Africa HTGR), significant increases in Uranium efficiency and substantial increases in operating life of the plant (60 years).”

So, they said $1000-1200 per kW of nameplate capacity, and I said $2000 per kW of nameplate capacity – the estimate I used, $2 billion for 1000 MW of nameplate capacity, is actually a little higher than what they’ve used, and more conservative – but still, I fail to see much of a discrepancy.

I think it would probably be fair for you to say that the http://nuclearinfo.net figures for the projected cost of advanced Gen. III+ LWR builds are perhaps a little out of date – the general consensus I’ve seen over the last year or so is certainly more than $1000/kW, you’re right about that.

That said, however, the http://nuclearinfo.net site is a good site, and I do recommend it for your studies of this topic.

Thanks for the additional wind farm example. Data with real capacity factor measurements rather than guesstimates is always good.

As you’ve shown, if you look at the pessimistic high end of the costings for new nuclear build, you’re looking at costs where wind power would become competitive. In such a scenario, I’ve got nothing against wind power, but it remains to be seen if it would or would be practically scalable up to this scale of electricity generation, where it is actually replacing coal or nuclear generation.

If you wish to compare wind with solar, for example, it certainly tends to be clear that wind energy is a more economically competitive option, between the two.

]]>