Comments on: Renewable Energy Passed Up Nuclear in 2010

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:10:00 +0000

Well, this isn’t for 2010, but thanks for sharing it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:36:00 +0000

Sorry, my comment ended up in the wrong place, it wasn’t meant as a reply to yours.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:02:00 +0000

Biomass, etc. are used to produce heat for non-electricity purposes. We don’t use nuclear heat to warm our houses.

Unless we are very unlucky….

By: Cees Timmerman

Cees Timmerman — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:33:00 +0000

“2. Nuclear power produce only electricity. Thermal solar, biomass, firewood and geothermal produce heat and no electricity. No competition here.”

Then what is causing all those meltdowns and possible spent-fuel fires?

By: Anumakonda Jagadeesh

Anumakonda Jagadeesh — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:16:00 +0000

Yes. Renewables have equalled Nuclear power and soon will be surpassing the latter. Let us look at Indian Power Scenario:

About 65.34% of the electricity consumed in India is generated by thermal power plants, 21.53% by hydroelectric power plants, 2.70% by nuclear power plants and 10.42% by Renewable Energy Sources. More than 50% of India’s commercial energy demand is met through the country’s vast coal reserves.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:48:00 +0000

Wow, very well said. Perfectly said.

By: Bruce Miller

Bruce Miller — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 01:29:00 +0000

Had the U.S. spent the $650 Billions+ lost to the Iraq fiasco on conventional Solar Thermal technology in the South Western U.S.A. Today they would have enough cheap electric power to compete on a level playing field with Chinese manufacturers. They did not. Now, they stand defeated on the real battlefield of the world, the economic battlefield, and China is the clear winner.

By: Bruce Miller

Bruce Miller — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 01:29:00 +0000

By: Nuclear Power & Flooding (Nuclear Power Getting Less Reliable) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:21:19 +0000

[…] Power Beats Nuclear Power in TexasWind Power in Europe MORE Reliable than Nuclear Power in JapanRenewable Energy Passed Up Nuclear in 2010Some Good News From JapanShareEmailSharePrintDigg 4 commentsTags:fort calhoun nuclear power […]

By: Wind Power Subsidies Don’t Compare to Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Subsidies – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:32:50 +0000

[…] advantage over wind power is about right.Another quote from a tremendous Worldwatch report on nuclear power published this April:“In the United States, even though nuclear and wind technologies produced a […]

By: GE: Solar Power Cheaper than Fossil Fuels in 5 years – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Sun, 29 May 2011 10:48:07 +0000

[…] reported a month and a half ago here on CleanTechnica that renewable energy passed up nuclear in total installed power capacity in 2010 (worldwide) and has been adding much more power to the […]

By: {One of the Best Videos on the Web} Darth Vader Kid & Rep. Ed Markey on Clean Energy & Oil – Planetsave.com: climate change and environmental news

Thu, 26 May 2011 05:06:37 +0000

[…] Renewable Energy Passed Up Nuclear in 2010 […]

By: Cosy

Cosy — Sat, 14 May 2011 09:23:00 +0000

For someone who is concerned about people being confused, u contribute more than your share to confusing people!!!
U stated several times that “renewables produce heat while nuclear produce only electricity”… Really? REALLY???
Nuclear generates HEAT which boils water producing STEAM which drives TURBINES to produce electricity
Also, u ignored the Worldwatch Institute Report as well as the comments of other people in the stubborn ignorance of trying to drive the conversation in your direction rather than to contribute RELEVANT information to an elaborately reviewed topic…

By: Important Media Umbrella Acct

Important Media Umbrella Acct — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:10:00 +0000

no problem. i was just explaining why there is sometimes a delay — part of the approval system is automated & some not. thanks for your reply

By: aaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaa — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:28:00 +0000

Given the fact that the nuclear had almost half a decade of a head start… as well as almost a monopoly in an astronomical figures of funding… the 13.5% figure is pretty pathetic.

Nuclear is just not very efficient or cost-effective.

By: Important Media Umbrella Acct

Important Media Umbrella Acct — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:25:00 +0000

Thank You, David. As I’ve replied to someone else already, the focus of the article/finding was capacity, because that is the point that was crossed. When output is crossed, we will write a similar post, I’m sure.

But beyond our simple coverage of the matter, the Worldwatch report is much more comprehensive, discussing this matter and many others in much more depth than a blog post can do.

Thank you for your interest.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:20:00 +0000

Say, NANA – I just ran into these interesting little facts.

In 2006 the average wind farm output for Hawaii was 41.7% of nameplate capacity.

During the 2004 to 2008 interval one wind farm in Texas and one in the “Heartland” broke the 45% output barrier.

page 52 –
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/2009_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:25:00 +0000

Wind is the least expensive source of electricity which we can install. (As long as you charge natural gas some price for environmental damage. Otherwise NG is about the same cost as wind.)

PV solar is cheaper than coal if you add in the hidden health and environmental costs of burning coal.

Geothermal is cheaper than new nuclear.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:08:00 +0000

NANANNANANNA, do you understand that “30% capacity” does not mean that the wind blows only 30% of the time? It sounds like you don’t.

You might want to read this to help you sort out what capacity means…

http://www.energyeconomyonline.com/When_the_Wind_Blows.html

It really doesn’t matter if wind is 20%, 30% or 40% capacity. What matters is the cost of power generated by a wind turbine. Wind is the least expensive source of electricity that we can install.

By: Grincholo

Grincholo — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:56:00 +0000

NANANNANANNA:

I find myself “philosophically” in your camp (maths vs dreams), yet your own quote captures neatly one of my main concerns:

“No source is 100% but windpower will never be over 40% considering the current technology.”

Of course, as long as renewables remain (for a whole host of reasons, some I even agree with) the 4th child of energy research in dollar terms living on comparative pennies, we ought not be surprised that that it remains “expensive” and “comparatively inefficient.” Even I am old enough to remember average fleet efficiency of automobiles, for example, of 10 and 12 MPG…barbaric by today’s (albeit cooked) standards.

Just adding (directly) the cost of the 5th Fleet to fossil fuels and the maths change somewhat, leaving fully aside details like respiratory illnesses and chemical waste dumps (some of which will still be needed by the manufacture of many “alternative energy” components).