anyone
The Basics
- Name: anyone
anyone’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
Keep in mind
According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdfNew nuclear has reached costs between 25 cents and 30 cents per kWh:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuc ...The US installed 7500 MW of windpower in 2008 alone:
http://strandedwind.org/node/212South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdfIn addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htmThinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.
http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
http://www.ausra.com/HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of €70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).
http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdfGeothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: EfficiencyHowever, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.
On Steven Chu's stances on key energy issues: a primer for his confirmation hearing posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 5 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Keep in mind
In 2008 the US installed,
Wind turbines: 7500 MW
Nuclear power plants: 0 MWhttp://strandedwind.org/node/212On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Wind is still less costly than nuclear
According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdfSouth dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdfIn addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htmThinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.
http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
http://www.ausra.com/HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of €70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).
http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdfGeothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: EfficiencyHowever, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.
On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 30 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
well
Where nuclear power has been built on a large scale, CO2 has gone down. Not so for wind and solar.
You mean like the US, which is still No. 1 as far as nuclear power is concerned and still has very high CO2 emission per capita.
Why has the US, more than double the CO2 emissions compared to Austria without nuclear power?
And why has Belgium with 55% nuclear power significantly more CO2 emissions per capita then Austria without nuclear power?Which countries have dramatically reduced CO2 output at an affordable cost, including all externalities and subsidies, using windmills and solar?
Even though China has no subsidies for solar collectors and strongly supports nuclear power, it has almost 10 times more solar hot water capacity then nuclear capacity installed.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
And even though China produces the consumer goods for the world, it has 8 times less CO2 emissions per capita then the US.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CN-enemc.h ...I agree. Get the manufacturing rate up for nuclear power plants and the cost will drop to where we won't need loan guarantees.
After almost 60 years of massive nuclear power subsidies, nuclear should be able to walk on its own feet by now. And government institutions to promote nuclear energy such as IAEA and Euratom are not needed either.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...Many countries have been duped into thinking wind can solve their problem and Denmark is making money on their ignorance. I am sorry to see it happen to the U.S.
If nuclear power is so much better, why ain't you rich?On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months ago 69 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Re:
True, it's not quite clear what the actual wind price would be.
But just to get a ballpark figure:
The average capital costs of the wind turbines were $1480/kW (2006).
At a capacity factor of 49% that corresponds to 1.7 cents per kWh over 20 years (without interest)
At a capacity factor of 23% that corresponds to 3.7 cents per kWh over 20 years (without interest).Thus, producing wind electricity below 6.4 cents/kWh sounds plausible even without incentives.
And since the wind conditions in the US are generally better than in Europe I would also expect wind costs to be lower than in Europe.Since the commodity prices (mainly copper and steel) went down, I would assume that the capital costs of wind turbines were also reduced somewhat.
And regarding lifestyle:
I had to work in the US (New England) for a couple of years. No offense, but I really do not understand why many Americans enjoy living in badly insulated houses. Example: One needs to buy film at the Home Depot to sort of reduce the draft due to the awful windows. They don't sell 'anti-draft-film' in central Europe, because windows that don't shut do not exist in the first place. Yes, government here has set tough standards regarding insulation. Does it reduce my quality of life? No, on the contrary. I actually enjoy the fact that I don't freeze and my heating bill is still much lower.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months ago 69 Responses