Wind Power in Europe MORE Reliable than Nuclear Power in Japan

June 16th, 2011 by Zachary Shahan

A lot of wind critics assert that wind power isn’t reliable. The wind power video above, however, does a great job of pointing out the differences between wind power variability and variability of traditional power sources, among other things. Paul Gipe of Wind-Works also recently got into this topic, in more detail, as compared to nuclear power:

Critics of wind energy often charge that wind energy is too “unreliable” to generate a large portion of a nation’s electricity and suggest that base load needs “reliable” sources of generation such as nuclear power.

While wind is a “variable” resource, that is, the wind doesn’t always blow and when it does it doesn’t always blow at the same strength, wind is far more reliable than the critics charge. In fact, wind is fairly predictable on long time horizons, especially from one year to the next.

In contrast, nuclear power is “reliable” until it isn’t as the units at the Fukushima nuclear power plant so dramatically demonstrate.

But the failure at Fukushima from the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami is not the only thing that has disrupted nuclear power output at Fukushima over the years.

“Despite nuclear power’s reputation as reliable base load generation, the Fukushima plants were anything but reliable over the four decades that the plants were in operation,” Gipe writes.

Annual generation was surprisingly erratic or ‘lumpy’ in the jargon of the trade.

Take Unit 6, the most modern unit, for example. In 2004 generation dropped from 4.6 TWh in 2003 to 1.1 TWh, and both were a far cry from the reported generation in 1997 of more than 9 TWh….

Similarly, Unit 5’s generation fell from 6.2 TWh in 1999 to 1.6 TWh in 2000.

But not just generation from individual units varied significantly from one-year to the next. Combined generation from Fukushima 1 also fluctuated from one year to the next. The safety shutdown at Fukushima 1 cut generation by two-thirds or nearly 20 TWh from 2002 to 2003. Generation didn’t return to normal levels until as late as 2007.

German wind energy generation, on the other hand, has been far more stable from one year to the next than Fukushima 1. Throughout the last two decades more and more wind generation has been added to the German electrical system. Today, German wind turbines generate as much electricity as the entire Fukushima 1 complex at its peak.

Now, I’m sure some nuclear enthusiasts will point out to me that these are specific examples that don’t capture the whole story. But, I think these are two specific examples well worth a look for a number of reasons.

While wind power may not be as reliable everywhere in the world as it is in Europe yet, that is because Europe has led the way on installing wind power on a relatively large scale and integrating it into the grid in relatively efficient ways. Other countries, as they install more and more wind and improve transmission and storage technologies, will get to the reliability level Europe is at. Furthermore, even Europe is nowhere near perfect yet, and it and the rest of the world will have better technologies in the future as this still nascent power option improves and matures.
The Fukushima power plant itself may have had a relatively rocky life, but other nuclear plants face similar issues as it has faced (prior to March 2011, of course). And, it is a power plant built in one of the “leading” nuclear energy countries in the world. If Japan can’t keep a nuclear power plant producing electricity smoothly, that’s not a good sign for the industry.

(Also, let’s not forget, in the extreme disasters that hit Japan and took down the Fukushima reactors, all of the countries’ wind turbines were left unscathed — that’s saying something for wind power, too!)

Anyway, I’m sure there’s more to mention here, and I imagine this will trigger more thoughts in our thoughtful readers. Chime in with your thoughts in the comments below.

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

Pingback: Utility Scale Electricity Storage Ramps Up with Growing Renewable Energy Use | CleanTechnica
Pingback: Nuclear Power & Flooding (Nuclear Power Getting Less Reliable) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views
Rara

Funny: The youtube video cannot be seen in Europe, because somewhere it has…
MUSIC!
- Anonymous
  
  Oh, that sucks! I can see it in Poland..
  
  hate that stuff
Joe

Why are you comparing the collective power output of every wind farm in a nation to a single nuclear power plant? I’m sure that all of the nuclear power plants in Japan (or France which might be a better example now) output far more energy than all of the windfarms in Germany/Spain, that is a much fairer comparison.
- Anonymous
  
  True.
  
  Answer (which is in the text as well, I think): I thought it was an
  interesting analysis showing that nuclear isn’t as perfect on this topic as
  it’s made out to be and wind isn’t as variable as it’s made out to be
  (especially, looking at relatively developed wind power *networks*). So, I
  highlighted it. (note that I did not conduct the analysis.)
  - Anonymous
    
    Nuclear is indeed very far from perfect, but the comparison of one nuclear plant (of several separately operating reactors) vs. all the wind turbines in Europe remains ridiculous (and the headline completely misleading).
    - Anonymous
      
      Japan has only 19 of its 52 reactors on line now. Four reactors have been totally destroyed, they’re about 100% unreliable.
      
      We’ve got two reactors off line in Virginia due to an earthquake last August.
      
      Davis-Bessie has been offline for years due to a leak that almost ate through the containment dome.
      
      Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida is off line because its containment dome concrete has fallen apart.
      
      We had reactors shut down this year due to floods and tornadoes.
      
      Palisades reactor recently went offline due to electrical outages.
      
      Browns Ferry was offline for many years because an inspector set it on fire with a candle.
      
      Humboldt Bay was closed because it was found to be on top of a significant earthquake fault.
      
      Rancho Seco was closed because it was a total POS.
      
      Then there’s Three Mile Island. That reactor certainly became unreliable on March 28, 1979, didn’t it?
      
      A reactor suddenly going offline is a much, much larger problem for grid operators than a rise or drop in wind speed or clouds moving across a service area and decreasing solar input.
      
      Wind and clouds are highly predictable over short term periods and generally do not effect the entire harvest area at the same time.
      - Rosa Goldman
        
        What you have listed are one-time events. In contrast, wind is fluctuating all the time.
      - Anonymous
        
        Yes, that was exactly his point.
        
        A huge nuclear power plant collapsing is much harder to predict and deal with.
        
        This is why the Dept of Defense is sold on decentralized energy networks. (Such as those created by more wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro.)
      - Anonymous
        
        Oh, I left out all the times when nuclear plants have to be taken offline due to heat waves. Just when we need their power the most…
      - Rosa Goldman
        
        That’s also when there’s no wind.
        
        It seems that wind might be as much a boondoggle as nuclear.
      - Anonymous
        
        Well, someone might think so. But if they were to educate themselves about how wind is working to bring us clean power and how wind is working to lower the cost of electricity then they would realize that wind is in no way a boondoggle.
        
        Nuclear is not so much a boondoggle as it is one of the two most expensive ways to generate electricity and the most dangerous. I wouldn’t call nuclear a boondoggle, but a dumb choice.
      - Anonymous
        
        And your point is what?
        
        Yes, the wind rises and falls. Yes, the Sun rises and sets. Yes, clouds move across the land.
        
        And, yes, sometimes nuclear reactors suddenly go away. For long, long times.
        
        The grid is constantly adjusting for changes in supply and demand. It’s much easier to adjust for a predicted, smaller change than a huge, non-predicted change.
- Alex
  
  I checked out a census on the power usage in germany in 2009, and the electrical output they produced was 555TWh. Which in all fairness is a 30TWh decrease from 2008.
  For right now that’s a really bad comparison, but if they can continue saving at the very least 30TWh per year, maybe renewable energy has a brighter future. As of now it doesn’t even compare to the amount of energy nuclear can come up with.
Se200019841

wow….your an idiot…
this article is a load of shit!! obviously you have no science background…that is expected from a writer…
you should try investing your time into books and deciphering the energy potential of nuclear vs wind power than posting random people comments…(who iam sure have no idea what they are talking about)..

pure shit!!
Jon_K

I believe it is the daily and hourly not yearly variations that drive power providers crazy. It’s turning on and off peaker plants to match the load that’s expensive. In the first place they must have the peaker plants. Secondly they are costly to run. Turning up a big base load plant somewhere tomorrow because a nuclear plant has an anticipated shutdown is a different thing.

I bet someone who really understands this will jump in now …
- Giorgio Alba
  
  Dear Jon_K, your reasoning is logical but it fail to take in account that even for nuclear power plants the daily and hourly output variations are not easy to manage.
  - Anonymous
    
    That is not true. Large base load plants, whether nuclear or coal, are designed to run constantly at pretty much full blast. They are not used to balance the load in response to demand (or negative demand, such as the infeed from wind turbines). In fact, they can take days to “warm up” after being off (usually for scheduled maintenance or refueling).