Comments anyone has made
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 10 months, 2 weeks ago 5 ResponsesKeep 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 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responses
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 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responseswell
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, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesRe:
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, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesUS windpower between 3 and 6.4 cents/kWh
According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh (2006).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdfOn Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responsespayroll-tax down and energy-tax up
If federal payroll taxes would be reduced and energy tax increased, Americans would still have the same amount in their wallets.
Besides, compared to what people in developed cities pay for rent, electricity prices are not even worth to be mentioned.But these are still no reasons, to claim that wind energy is expensive and may have a huge impact on electricity prices, when this is simply wrong:
As an other example: The feed-in-tariffs in Spain were 7.3 cents/kWh (2007) for wind-power. At these prices, the windturbine producer and installer still have to be able to pay the connection to the grid, pay for maintenance, pay for land-use, pay the loan-interests, pay insurance, pay taxes and make a profit, otherwise there would simply not be one single windturbine in Spain.
http://www.epuron.de/Portaldata/1/Resources/05_press/news ...
(Spain had 15.5 GW windpower as of Jan 2008).
On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesPS
On page 70 of Bill's reference:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-0 ...Industrial electricity prices (2007):
Denmark: 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWhOn Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesRe: Q&A
Denmark has taxes on energy including electricity like other countries tax pay-rolls. That has nothing to do with the actual production costs of electricity.
Also, according to following reference: Industrial consumers in Denmark pay 8.01 cents/kWh while industrial consumers in Belgium with over 55% nuclear power pay 9.96 cents/kWh.: http://tinyurl.com/EU-elecricityMore importantly: Denmark still exports over 90% of its wind turbines with profit in a market with a double digit growth (as opposed to nuclear power which does neither). http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKLV55678920081231 ...
France has less CO2 emissions per capita then Denmark. But that simply doesn't change the fact that if the US wanted to half its CO2 output per capita as soon as possible, it can hardly reach this goal by heavily investing tax-money in nuclear power.
If it invested the same amount in wind, co-generation plants and efficiency, it would not only get there in less time but by far outperform nuclear power concerning the total CO2-reduction.
http://tinyurl.com/NEI-articleThe question is not: How can the US promote nuclear power no matter what. The question is, how can the US reduce its CO2 emissions as fast as possible and affordably. On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses
Huh?
According to the facts:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/m ...
electricity prices in Denmark are:
Industry: 7cents/kWh
Households: 10cents/kWh150W is whooping? At costs of about $1400/kW windpower that would correspond to roughly $10 capital investment per Danish person per year over the lifetime of a wind turbine (10 apple pies). But far more importantly: Denmark exports over 90% of its wind turbines with profit in a market with a double digit growth (as opposed to nuclear power). (So, many more apple pies in return).
Also, Denmark has over 50% flexible co-generation plants installed, which - as opposed to nuclear power plants - can quickly reduce or increase their power as needed.
And the average Danish person emits about half the CO2 per capita then the average American even though the living standard is about the same.HVDC transmission lines cost €70/kW and 1000km.
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...
New nuclear power plants cost $8000/kW?
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is higher anyway.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm
And even if gas power plants are built as back up power: Since their capital costs are 10 times lower than a nuclear power plant, they can reduce CO2 emissions if the money saved is invested in efficiency. http://tinyurl.com/NEI-article There's no reason to use natural gas to heat badly insulated houses, when it can be used to generate electricity.
Besides: As opposed to the nuclear energy proponents, the wind energy proponents never suggest that wind is always the best option in any case.And as opposed to nuclear power plants, houses covered with PV-panels do reduce the load on the grid. Not only because they are distributed, but also because they never produce power at night when there is little need for electricity. But then again they do produce power when air conditioners are at full load.
And there's no reason to continue to invest massive sums into government funded nuclear research over several decades, when solutions to produce and use electricity in a clean and efficient manner do exist already. On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses
The links above are not broken
Also, if only 70 W of thinfilm PV capacity (about one half of a PV module weighing less than 50 lbs.) per American would be installed annually, that leads to over 20 GW PV capacity per year already.
On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesYes they have
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA221.htm
and they also plan to reach an output of 2 GW on a single production facility by the end of 2010.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA192.htmIt takes less time to build a 1 GW PV fab than to build a single 1 GW power plant.
Semiconductor companies such as Oerlikon and Applied Materials deliver turn key highly automated thinfilm PV fabs:
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_v ...A modern thinfilm PV fab costs less than $2000/kW (yearly capacity).
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_p ...
(And the fab costs are the major costs of the modules, as the substrates (glass) are relatively inexpensive).The vehicle industry sells almost 10 Million cars per year in the US alone.
If the PV market would only manage to sell 10 times less PV systems with 10 kW on average, that would already lead to 10 GW per year.
More importantly: Spain installed 2.5 GW of PV in 2008 alone. And the US has a population which is almost 8 times larger than Spain and the US has over 20 times more area and areas with more sun irradiation than Spain.
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/articles/pv/bus_news/ ...On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesProfessor is correct
Of course, fusion is the energy source of the future. We already have a very reliable fusion reactor in our sun system and we already have the means to produce electricity from it and this with a wide variety of options.
A single Chinese company has already reached a yearly production capacity of 1 GW of modules to harness the power of that fusion reactor.
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=1 ...Future roofs will not only protect from rain and wind, they will also harness fusion power and thus reduce the load on the grid.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses
Re: Fusion fantasies
http://ihp-lx2.ethz.ch/energy21/energylecture_9.pdfOn Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses
Most consumers are not willing to pay extra
Most consumers may not be willing to pay an extra price for electricity even if electricity was produced in a holy nuclear power plant.
Speaking of efficiency: Even though Germany has the same living standard as the US and Germany does still subsidize coal, CO2 emissions per capita are almost doubled in the US.
But then again an American fell and died once while insulating the roof. Investment in efficiency can thus not be an option for the US.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.h ...
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DE-enemc.h ...On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 ResponsesWind is definitely 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 The staggering cost of new nuclear power posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 7 ResponsesWind is definitely 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.pdf
Thinfilm 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 alone. 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.htmlIn addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm92 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 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 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 to promote nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses
Wind is definitely 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.pdf
Thinfilm 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.In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm92 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 ...
Not to mention geothermal, biomass, tidal and most importantly: efficiency.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.
www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdfGeothermal can provide 100GWe in the US 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 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 to promote nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses
Wind is less costly than new nuclear
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW and this at prohibitively long planning and construction times.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...On the other hand, 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 ...
No wonder wind capacity has currently a yearly growth of 45 in the US:
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37883And interconnected Windfarms do provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdfHVDC 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 ...And: Hydro power plants already installed can simply be turned off when too much wind power is generated.
And: Gas power plants already in place can simply be turned off when too much wind power is generated.
On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 ResponsesHopefully he's better in math than Bill
Wind is less costly than new nuclear:
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW and this at prohibitively long planning and construction times.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...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.pdf
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...No wonder wind capacity is currently growing about 20 times faster than nuclear and has a double digit growth every single year. http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content& ...
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdfThinfilm 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.92 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 ...Not to mention geothermal, biomass, tidal and most importantly: efficiency.On Likely Obama DOE head talks about climate change and renewable energy posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses
Wind is cheaper than new nuclear - it's a fact
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...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.pdf
South 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.pdf
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 ResponsesNuclear power has international institutions
such as IAEA and Euratom and Renewables do not.
If Renewables can go without tax dependant institutions, so can nuclear power.
It's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 Responses
Nuclear power is losing market share
while renewables have a double digit growth despite not receiving the enormous subsidies that nuclear receives.
It's doubtful that nuclear will ever provide as much as electricity as renewables do. More hydro than nuclear power is already generated anyway. Wind capacity is currently growing about 20 times faster than nuclear. http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content& ...
Wind is less costly than new nuclear:
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...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.pdf
South 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.pdfThinfilm photovoltaics is claimed to 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.92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada and less than 10,000 sq mi) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal.
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 ...Aircrafts, trucks and commercial ships will still be oil powered in the future, but there's no reason to keep on powering heating systems and private transportation on oil.
Btw, China has significantly more solar hot water capacity installed than nuclear power:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
because it is cheaper to heat water on ones roof than to build new nuclear power plants to power wasteful resistance heaters.On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 ResponsesPublic funding in energy research
Significantly more public funding has gone into nuclear energy research than hydro, tidal, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal energy research combined.
Eventhough the potential of all these renewable options is significantly higher than nuclear.Nuclear proponents are repetively and falsely claiming that renewables are not enough, thus justifying enormous public funding for nuclear energy research alone, which should be invested more wisely and diversified in many options. On Safety is for extremists posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses
Hydro beats nuclear - it's a fact.
And if France couldn't depend on all the foreign pumped storage hydroelectricity and the wasteful resistance heaters running at night, it would not know what to do with all its inflexible nuclear power.
Nowadays dams and pumped storage hydroelectricity regulate nuclear power. In the future they regulate wind power.
People keep on forgetting, that nuclear power plants only produce electricity.
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responses
Nuclear needs to learn to walk on its own
It's doubtful that nuclear will ever provide as much as electricity as renewables do. More hydro than nuclear power is already generated anyway.
Wind capacity is currently growing about 20 times faster than nuclear. http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content& ...Wind is less costly than new nuclear:
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...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.pdf
South 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.pdfThinfilm photovoltaics is claimed to 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.92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada and less than 10,000 sq mi) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal.
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 ...Aircrafts, trucks and commercial ships will still be oil powered in the future, but there's no reason to keep on powering heating systems and private transportation on oil.
Btw, China has significantly more solar hot water capacity installed than nuclear power:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdfOn Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 ResponsesNuclear needs to learn to walk on its own
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars and ratepayers to pay in advance.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.
Btw, wind power is growing by 7,500 MW in 2008 alone (an increase of 45% compared to 2007)
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_ ...
If wind only grows 12% annually for the next decade that'll lead to over 200 GW by 2020 (while the new nuclear power plants still haven't generated one single kWh). And windpower is not asking ratepayers to pay in advance.On Environment America says McCain's nuclear expansion would be 'an economic disaster' posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 ResponsesNuclear needs to learn to walk on its own
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.
Btw, wind power is growing by 7,500 MW in 2008 alone (an increase of 45% compared to 2007)
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_ ...If wind only grows 12% annually for the next decade that'll lead to over 200 GW by 2020.
On Obama campaign targets McCain's support of dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 ResponsesIt's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.
Btw, wind power is growing by 7,500 MW in 2008 alone (an increase of 45% compared to 2007)
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_ ...If wind only grows 12% annually for the next decade that'll lead to over 200 GW by 2020 (while the new nuclear power plants still haven't generated one single kWh).
On In presidential debate, McCain misleads on nuclear power posted 1 year, 1 month ago 12 ResponsesNuclear power must stop depending on taxpayers.
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.
Also, why does the nuclear industry still need tax payers to pay for institutions like IAEA or Euratom to promote nuclear energy? Can't the nuclear industry start to use their own funds instead of constantly asking us taxpayers for help?
On Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 ResponsesNo one stops you
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.On Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses
Nuclear needs to learn to walk on its own feet
Go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 67 Responses
Bradish failed to deliver facts
Charles, as opposed to Lovins, Bradish failed to deliver data and facts.
Anyway, go ahead spend all your private savings on nuclear power, but please, please stop asking for tax dollars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.On Not Lovins nukes posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses