tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post1274318387368779868..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: 20% wind by 2030 not on trackCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-24879326964309961592010-02-16T21:02:49.104-06:002010-02-16T21:02:49.104-06:00The other big question the DOE must answer about w...The other big question the DOE must answer about wind is how does it fit into a low carbon generation portfolio? The 20% wind report and EWITS indicated that wind power works fine as long as it's diluted 3:1 with fossil fuel (e.g. 20% wind, 60% dispatchable power, 20% nuclear). The EWIT study showed that there is a significant cost increase as wind power is raised to 30%.<br /><br />Without revolutionary new technology (e.g. cheap and efficient storage), it appears that in order to meet our goal of 80% carbon reduction, wind must be phased-out along with fossil fuel (assuming it ever becomes big).Nathan2gohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06027370395249364154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-74294975893139263502010-02-16T09:02:53.541-06:002010-02-16T09:02:53.541-06:00John I probably will post a list of subsidies that...John I probably will post a list of subsidies that benefit the wind industry in the near future. I am aware of Paul Hawkins work, and have mentioned it in several past posts. I have been able to find at least partial support for his claim that wind is a weak carbon mitigator, and indeed have shown that carbon mitigation with wind is 3.5 times more expensive than carbon mitigation with nuclear.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-52242698926040523732010-02-16T08:53:35.974-06:002010-02-16T08:53:35.974-06:00Check out this site. It shows that adding wind gen...Check out this site. It shows that adding wind generated power to the grid takes more fossil fuel and creates a larger carbon footprint then generating all the power with fossil fuel. I am not able to evaluate the validity of Kent Hawkins' calculator. Since this is found on a blog site it probably has no had peer review.<br /><br />http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/<br />Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update)<br />Kent Hawkins concludes,“ no plausible scenario seems to exist where wind can play a positive role as the means to achieve fossil fuel or greenhouse gas emissions savings”<br /><br />Charles I know that you are well aware of government subsidies for renewables, but let's review subsidies again.<br />Not only do banks and the auto industry get large government bailouts. Wind and solar get continuous bailouts called government subsidy to keep then competitive. The Energy Information Administration reports the 2007 federal subsidy for wind at $23.37/MWh and for solar at $24.34/MWh. No wind or solar would be built without a large government subsidies. In contrast the federal energy subsidy for nuclear was only $1.59/MWh. The nuclear waste fee plus the costs for decommissioning nuclear power plants that close actually exceed the subsidy received by the nuclear power industry. <br /><br />Building comparable generating capacity from diffuse and intermittent energy sources takes a toll on our mineral resources. I have calculated that wind needs 7 times more concrete and 90 times more steel than nuclear. Thermal solar requires 14 times more concrete and 140 times more steel than nuclear. Wind and solar are not “smart and sensible” energy solutions, and they are not environmentally friendly because they consume huge amount of natural resource and they occupy enormous amounts of land. Owing to their intermittent nature fossil fuel backup is needed. <br /><br />Our fleet of reactors, built in about a twenty year period, is making a big dent, producing 20% of our nation’s electricity and 70% of our emission-free power at a cost of less than two cents/kWh.<br /><br />The only way to move the world away from dirty fossil fuel is to find an energy source that is cheaper than dirty coal. Advance generation nuclear power holds promise of making cheaper power than coal. <br /><br />Nuclear power is the safest, most achievable, and most economical energy solution. If we choose more expensive wind and solar power, the goods our factories produce will not compete well on the world market and our jobless rate will grow. Think twice about making a smart and sensible choice of power.<br /><br />John TjostemAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com