The global installed capacity of wind power now exceeds nuclear, and solar is not far behind. These technologies have very different capacity factors, so nuclear is still ahead in terms of actual electricity produced. However, we can see where the trends are going, and nuclear is getting its ass kicked.
The saturated colours show installed capacity, and the pastel colours show actual production. Dotted lines show industry forecasts for installed capacity. The difference between capacity and production is the capacity factor. No generating technology is ever capable of running at 100% power all the time. Solar panels can't produce at night, and wind turbines can't produce when there's no wind, Nuclear has the highest capacity factor, with individual reactors able to run at 100% for up to a couple of years, but sooner or later they have to shut down for lengthy maintenance, repairs, and fuel replacement. Over the long term, the global nuclear fleet has an average capacity factor of only 75%. Wind is typically around 30%, and solar is 10%. That's why the pastel blue (nuclear), green (wind), and red (solar) lines are below the saturated blue, green and red.
Note that capacity is typically given in units of GW, while production is in units of TWh, but these are really both units of power when you realize that production on an annual basis. Here's the conversion:
- 1 GW X 365 days/year X 24 hours/day X 0.001 T/G = 8.76 TWh/year
- 100 GW = 876 TWh/year
Although this graph shows current trends, that does not necessarily reflect the true relative merits of the technologies. These trends may be biased by current political perceptions and might not continue in the long term. A key challenge to wind an solar is their intermittency and the lack of cost effective electricity storage. There is some potential for consumers to adapt by using electricity when it is available, but we will still have a need to run refrigerators and streetlights on windless nights. Nuclear power has the opposite problem that it has to run at near 100% all the time, and has limited capacity to follow the rise and fall of actual variable demand. You can vent steam to avoid overvolting the grid, but that doesn't save any fuel or money. If you shut down a reactor, you can't bring it back up for three days because of xenon poisoning. That's just long enough so that you can't shut down a reactor for the weekend, otherwise you won't have enough power available on Monday morning.
Load following is done by throttling fossil fuel plants in most jurisdictions. In a climate-constrained future, we are going to need new ways of doing this, and none of the three options here can offer a complete solution.
I built this graph myself by combining data from several source:
- IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
- US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics
- Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Statistics
- European Photovoltaic Industry Association, Global Market Outlook
- Renewables 2016 Global Status Report
So what, wiuth a CF of 0.2, they would have to install 5x th capacity to match the power production.
And with subsidies for building windmills and selling the power from windmills, it is basically saying "no one would build these if we didn't use force."
No, that's not quite right. Wind has a CF of 0.3 and nuclear has a CF of 0.75, so they would have to install 2.5x the capacity to match the power production. But wind capacity is about a third of the cost of nuclear capacity, so they technologies are neck and neck economically. The biggest differentiators are intermittency of wind and nuclear waste.
Intermittency means you need another equivalent total capacity
Which means you lose all captal and fuel lowering once you take the complete system to provide X Mw to the grid.
No, it doesn't mean that. All generating sources are intermittent, and the grid has always been designed to deal with that. Equipment needs to be maintained or breaks down unexpectedly, so you always need surplus generation capacity available to avoid outage. That doesn't mean that all electricity generators are worthless.
No, you are completely misrepresenting the availability of the power source.
If gas plants had to shut down for half of every day, or for days at a time randomly, no one would build them. And no one would claim their capacity was wonderful if they hit full capacity only rarely, and averaged about 30% when they ran at all.
Furthermore: US fleet CF is over 0.9; and wind is closer to 0.2 - the best wind locations get CFs over 0.3, but they are already installed and additional wind will just end up being in crappy places.
As a nuclear engineer, I can assure you that nuclear plants can throttle down; a 4-loop can throttle to 25% and still run the temperature through one loop for optimum eficiency. The mass flow changes to meet the change in demand.
The US nuclear fleet does do significantly better than the world average, (0.9 CF is about right) but you are grossly underestimating the wind fleet performance and potential. The US wind fleet capacity factor was 0.29 in 2011. (That's the most recent figure I could find quickly.) And if anything, it is the current wind farms that were poorly sited because they were only intended as experimental or demonstration projects. Analyses of wind potential show that the most promising sites, particularly mountain ridges and offshore, have hardly been touched. Scientific studies predict we could expect fleet CFs of 0.4 in the future.
Yes, but that 0.29 is by choosing the BEST wind locations with the lowest ROI times. As additional farms go in, they go in worse and worse places.
Furthermore, the time to replace a wind farm is quite low in actual experience.
I guess you didn't bother to read my comment?
I countered your "current are experimental" - it is compete B.S., not borne out by the actual data.
Congratulations @geotrope! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about this award, click here
Congratulations @geotrope! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!