And you aren’t including capital costs. I’ve never obstructed it, as my post indicated, I have in fact invested it. You are being disingenuous for not investing in something you are so certain about. Talk to an investment advisor on the costs of owning and operating both. I’ve done that and done my own research and made money my way. People are making money my way every day. No individual in this country has had a newspaper article in the last 20 years about how they even plan to invest in nuclear and make money: they cannot.
There are a lot of reasons not to invest in nuclear and lots to invest in wind power.
Oh, and I have a friend who has a business of selling solar panels for the roofs of homes and business. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for nuke? No, there is not.
All roof generated solar is required to be sold to the local power company as I understand it.
I might just as accurately say that it is stupid of you to compare the cost of servicing that capital cost for nuclear, without also factoring the cost of servicing the necessary conventional backup system for the renewables. After all if it weren’t for the conventional backup the renewables wouldn’t be able to generate any power at all large amounts of the time, thus giving them no market.
Trying to work out capital costs for any type of power generation is highly dependant on the assumptions you plug in. That’s why the differ by an orderof magnitude depending on your source.
We’re trying to compare apples and oranges here. Any comparison of cost will depend on precisely what costs we are measuring. At this juncture I am measuring the cost of production. That’s not a stupid comparison, it is perfectly valid comparison. It certainly isn’t the only comparison that can be made, nor is your comparisons of the capital costs.
The only truly fair comparison IMO is one which compares them on the basis of how much it will cost in toto to operate either system completely independently of the other. ie if we switched to a pure renewables system tomorrow what we be the cost, and ditto for nuclear. But we can’t do that because wind and solar can’t operate independently of either coal or nuclear.
The next best comparison would be to add the costs of the necessary nuclear/coal system to renewables system. And that would make the cost of renewables even higher compared to nuclear.
But the ultimate problem is that we are trying to compare a system that can replace fossil fuels with one that can not.
That’s nice. I’d rather have the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
What’s your point?
Cite! Because that ain’t what the experts are concluding in actual peer reviewed literature.
“solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a
small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible”
Patzek T W. Pimentel D 2005 Thermodynamics of energy production from biomass Critical reviews in plant sciences 24:5
Note that we are not talking about energy here, but electricity generation.
No, it doesn’t just need a grid. A grid can move electricity around the country. It can’t ensure that the wind never stops blowing in Nevada. That’s; the problem. The construction of the grid is a significant capital and environmental cost rarely factored into the costs of wind power, but it is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that the wind stops blowing in Nevada at times.
Probably not, but even if that were true we are talking about power generation here. Trying to argue that wind can be generated with isolated windmills on each hilltop at any thing less than ten times the cost of nuclear power is absurd.
WTF? No, seriously, WTF?
Are you attempting to argue that because something isn’t economically attractive it is physically impossible? Because if not I have no idea what your point is here.
And in case you missed it: NO, it isn’t reasonable to say that. It isn’t even sensible.
Sheesh.
I have. And everything I find says that wind is much more expensive than nuclear. Can you provide even a single reference to support your claim that it is cheaper?
I’m seeing a lot of bluster, and a lot of wild figures from commercial sites about about how cheap their winder power might be. But do you have any actual figures to support your claim that wind power is cheaper than nuclear?
Did ya really miss the part about the inspectors finding many defects? And the heavily implied notion that finding those defects before firing up the nukes was quite possibly a good thing?
With capital costs and identical assumptions nuclear power costs 3.01 cents/kWh compare to 8 cents for wind.
Now hows about you show us the basis for your claims to the contrary. Even your most wildly optimistic, pie-in-the-sky claims for wind don’t better 3.01 cents.
:rolleyes: Do you really think this is a logical argument?
I have a friend who has a business of selling crystals for the doorways of homes to cure syphillis. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for penniciln? No, there is not.
Ego crystals work and pennicilin does not.
Do you even know what a subsidy is?
Yeah. Cause I make all my investments based on practical certainty, rather than return. :rolleyes:
Damn straight. Just as there are a lot of reasons to invest in Christian literature and movies like “Left behind” and few to invest in atheist literature.
So that proves that Christianity works and atheism doesn’t. Right? :rolleyes:
I you honestly don’t understand that what the public buys in no way reflects on its utility then I don’t think I cn help you much.
But I do look forward to seeing evidence for your claim that wind electricity is cheaper per Kw/hr than nuclear.
You didn’t read anything I wrote or cited, did you? Go back and read all of it and compare it to citations you bring. You don’t make any citations at all and just wish a few hundred nuclear power plants into existence. Yes, among the many things I cited I did not cite my proof that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US. Here are the cites:
Now, I notice you demand that people cite things. I can and do. I also notice that you don’t cite for all of your claims, not even most of them. You are talking off the top of your head about things you know little about. When you come back, go through this thread and offer citations for every fact you have stated. Please. And then let us know how much you have invested in each technology.
As for your preference to living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone to where I live, I’d prefer that you have your personal preference met in location where you live, be it Chernobyl or anywhere else you choose, just don’t hypothetically force me to live anywhere near a nuke plant. I personally live within 20 miles of at least 2 gigawatts of generating capacity, and I like it fine as non nuke, thank you, and want to see more wind. (We’ve got a lot more to give.)
You start out by saying that it isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it is being caused by obstructionism. Which is it?
Were these repair costs added to the project because there are more inspestors than there are at a coal plant, or would they have been found and repaired even without the inspectors.
You can’t have it both ways.
If the increased tests at the nuclear plant found flaws that would not have been otherwise, then this justifies the increased cost of testing, but it also means the same flaws wouldn’t have been detected at a coal or hydro plant and the cost of the project would have been lower.
And if the flaws would have been found at the coal plant even without the increased testing then the cost of the testing was an unnecessary burden, and the cost of the equivalent coal or hydro plant would have been lower.
So I repeat: You start out by saying that the additional cost of repairs isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it is being caused by obstructionism. Which is it?
Dude if there’s anything you want a reference (not citation) for then just ask. So far you haven’t asked.
I’ve certainly provided references for my claims that nuclear electricity of much cheaper than wind. Now can you provide a reference for your claim to the contrary?
Neither of those references makes any claim even remotely like “there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US”.
The closest the first one comes is “It has been estimated that [an area] 161 km on a side …could theoretically meet the electricity needs of the entire country if the solar radiation in that area could be converted to electricity with 10% efficiency
[/quote]
This reference never says that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US. It is saying that with some might big assumption there is enough energy falling in that area to equal the electricity use of the country.
The second reference is even more vague. It says “wind energy potential is estimated at …more than twice the total electricity generated from all sources in America today
[/quote]
It isn’t even talking about potential electricity generation electricity. It’s talking about total energy.
Jeez, if this is what your arguments are based on I think I can just give up and let others make what they will of your knowledge. You refute internationally acclaimed scientists in peer reviewed journsl stating plainly that renewables can’t replace fossil fuels with statement sin pres releases about potential energy equivalence to electricity generation.
Like I say, if you want a reference for any claim of mine then just ask.
No you don’t, I’ve asked at leats 5 times for a reference for your claim that wind power is cheaper /kw hr than nuclear.
Why is falling price a reasonable bet? Because as windmills get bigger, their cost goes up marginally compared to the squared area of wind that the larger windmill sweeps out. Additionally, putting the hub higher puts it in a higher wind.
Do you even know what you’re talking about? What do you think solar panels do, if not convert solar energy into electricity?
It doesn’t rely on any “mighty big assumptions” to work either. Solar panels that convert solar energy to electricity at a better than 10% efficiency are already available, and as long as you’re putting them somewhere that doesn’t get much cloud cover, it’s pretty simple to work out how much solar energy hits them per year.
Disagreeing with its points doesn’t make it not so.
Yep, that’s what it says. You don’t believe it, and I don’t believe what you assert, but don’t cite.
Yes, that is correct.
You are welcome to depart. I have refuted no peer reviewed articles, but you are most welcome to refer to them most specifically. I note that you refer to none here by name, just vague peer reviewed journals. By the way, scientists do not calculate costs, accountants do.
Yes, every time you assert that someone has stated data or an opinion, like the “peer reviewed journals” (like immediately above) you should include a link. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t bother reasserting your assertions.
I’ve given you the MIT number and the Canadian report.
For those others still reading, none of the smaller (1 megawatt) turbines are being installed in the modern installations. Pickens 1.5 megawatt turbines cost 3 million each.
I just told you that they have literal inherently safe reactors. Safe in that the very fabric of the universe will not let them blow up. Not kidding. They can’t go boom.
So test planes flying in to reactors? Why?
Oil tankers bust up and ruin coastlines. Do we need to test what happens when an oil tanker runs aground?
Nope. We know what will happen and it will be a mess.
What needs to be worried about is the operation of the reactor. What if someone goofs up or some improbable series of events happens?
In this case the reactor can…not…fail. Period. End of story. You could not make it go boom even if you really, really tried. No meltdown…nothing.
It’s like you are asking to test the reliability of 2+2=4.
Not so with PBMRs. The M stands for modular. The plants can be self-contained units built and fuelled in one location, then installed on site, kind of like how nuclear-powered ships were proposed to be parked outside New Orleans to provide power for reconstruction, or were used for the Panama Canal. Yes, site security is then a location-specific issue, but that’s not a problem unique in the Pebble Bed design, nor is it a major factor when yu consider that the PB design can’t be made to melt down or anything like that, even with a terrorist strike. The design is inherently self-limiting.
BTW, I’ve reported your “Bless You” to DT as deliberate antagonism.
Once again, your references don’t support your claim.
The cost of nuclear power plants is explicitly based on 2009 figures with 2008/09 costs. It makes point of stressing that the cost increase is due to recent increases in capital costs. The paper also notes that the ‘cost of
building coal- and gas-fired plants has also increased although perhaps not quite to the
same extent”. While it makes no mention of the change in the cost of wind or electric plants it’s reasonable to assume those costs also increase data similar rate.
You then try to compare those figures to an unreferenced, unattributed 2007 publication from some anonymous pro-wind group. It’s not even a reputable reference, particularly when it’s contradicting government agencies and scientific journals. But even if I were to accept it, you can not do that. Either compare 2009 prices to 2009 prices, or assume equal capital cost increases over time.
Because when we look at some more reputable references closer to the 2009 date for the nuclear figures we see:
In good wind sites in the U.S., the cost of wind electricity is in the range of 4 to 7 cents/kW h
Muradov and Veziroğlu ““Green” path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-neutral technologies”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Volume 33, Issue 23, December 2008
The unsubsidized cost of wind-generated electricity ranges from about 5 to 8.5 cents/kWh
Thresher, R. Robinson, M. Veers, P. 2007 “Capture the Wind”, Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE 5:6
I’ll give you one more chance, but it you demonstrate that you either don’t understand or are deliberately misrepresenting a reference again I will wash my hands of you.
Sigh. You are confusing potential energy with actual, usable energy. Costs of installation, reliability of supply etc.
Do you really thin it’s plausible for me to say that nuclear power for NY is unnecessary because fart powered power plants can produce all the electricity needed? Because that;s what is being attempted here.
This debate was always about the fact that fossil fuels can replace coal powered plants at short notice, and that renewables are unable to. Not what might be possible in theory with some far future technology. What is practically and actually possible right now or in the near future.
Look, do you honestly think someone like Pimmental, possibly the authority of the subject, is going to get published in a peer reviewed journal saying that is isn’t possible when it’s possible using a tiny area in Nevada. Just think about that.
Ok, that’s it. You’ve yet again misrepresented a reference.
Not only doesn’t that article say that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US, it specifically says that is there are practical barriers to prevent it from being so.
Now I’m guessing your going to say that you meant “one day there will be enough power to run the US, if we can get the technology sorted out”. But don’t even try it. You started this nonsense by disputing my claim that nuclear can replace fossil fuels right now, and renewables are unable to meet more than a tiny fraction of energy needs. You don’t get to change tactic now to pretend you meant we might be able to do it one day when we overcome numerous practical barriers.
I don’t know whether you are doing this because you don’t understand how to do valid research or it is deliberately dishonest, and frankly I don’t care. I’ll leave it to others to decide how much to trust someone who misrepresents references.
That’s rich, coming from someone who doesn’t even know the definition of “potential energy”.
What part of “already available” don’t you understand? Two years ago, I was already using commercially available solar panels that achieve a better efficiency than the 10% suggested.
Pimentel is not the authority on the subject. If you’d at least read the cover page of the paper you quoted, you might notice that he’s a professor of the life sciences, not of engineering or physics. His co-author, Patzek, would be a more likely candidate.