Wind power would cost half that.
What was the point of linking to The Masters article on how safe nuclear is? Was there a point you wanted to make? I can’t see how it helps your case, to be honest, but I’m curious.
Do you have a credible cite that the true costs of wind power are 5 cents a kW/h?
-XT
And runs day and night, 24/7. I’ve flown over wind farms many a time when they weren’t turning. They make great artwork when idle.
That’s why we install large wind arrays that span many different “wind zones” let’s call them. It’s the principle of “it’s always windy somewhere.” One turbine can get clogged with Spotted Owls and shut down, and you’ve already calculated that into your plans and the wind power network still has a reliable baseload power production. Add a quick, cleanish gas turbine to it for demand peaks, and you’re all set.
Wrong commodity. I’m talking about the world indium supply. If it were just a matter of digging up more indium, I wouldn’t have any research to do.
Do you honestly believe that any calculations of windpower are based on 100% of rated capacity? Or is this another time of bringing up the intermittency issue (which has been discussed quite throughly here already)?
Wind and solar don’t work all the time. Unlike nuclear, which is reliable and trouble free. And so much less expensive.
Chernobyl is already up to $200 billion. On a per/MW energy produced basis, that’s a steal. I think. Ask xtisme.
The only reason everybody doesn’t have clean safe nuclear power plants is stupid people.
I know a power plant producing nothing when I see it.
Unlike nuclear plants, wind often ends up costing a lot, then they shut it down, with out ever seeing a bit of power.
What you see is one part of a large system not moving, which is how they’re designed.
Another reason you may not see them moving is because the current price of electricity is near zero and they don’t have the transmission lines to sell it, so they don’t.
Uh huh. So we build a huge wind farm for the purposes of what again? If they aren’t turning, they’re public art.
Fortunately, not in the same way the Chernobyl sarcophagus is public art. Although, Ukraine is so strapped for money to pay for it, they’re opening it up for tourism. I’d go; it’s probably cool. Wouldn’t stay long though.
btw. Vestas unveils massive 7MW offshore wind turbine . it’s supposed to cut the price by 40%.
But when them offshore wind turbines spring a leak, they can poison thousands of miles of ocean.
[QUOTE=Rune]
btw. Vestas unveils massive 7MW offshore wind turbine . it’s supposed to cut the price by 40%.
[/QUOTE]
What’s it cost? I seem to recall one of those bigger wind turbines was like 20-30 million Euros…not including all the infrastructure you need to put it in place and get the power back to the grid.
-XT
How much would an offshore nuclear plant cost? Think of the time it would save when something goes wrong.
How about an off-planet nuclear power plant? We could build one on the moon, use really expensive nuclear fuel to boil water (boiling water is easy on the moon), use that to make steam, which can power turbines, which can produce electricity, that can be converted into microwaves, which can then be beamed back to the earth, wherever it’s needed, safely and affordably. No proliferation or terrorism concerns. If they can get up there, it will be too complicated for them to bring anything back.
It’s genius! Lemme call the IAEA!