Comments on: Wind Power in Europe MORE Reliable than Nuclear Power in Japan

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:14:00 +0000

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.

By: Rosa Goldman

Rosa Goldman — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:34:00 +0000

That’s also when there’s no wind.

It seems that wind might be as much a boondoggle as nuclear.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:58:00 +0000

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…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:56:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:54:00 +0000

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.)

By: Rosa Goldman

Rosa Goldman — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:38:00 +0000

What you have listed are one-time events. In contrast, wind is fluctuating all the time.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:23:00 +0000

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.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:19:00 +0000

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.

By: Utility Scale Electricity Storage Ramps Up with Growing Renewable Energy Use | CleanTechnica

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:01:08 +0000

[…] See these related stories:- World’s First Solar Power Plant that Works at Night Constructed- Wind Power In Europe MORE Reliable than Nuclear Power in Japan – “Drill, Baby, Drill” Can Store Gigawatts of Renewable Energy – […]

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

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:03:59 +0000

[…] it provides reliable, baseload power.” We saw last week how this wasn’t the case in Fukushima, even before the disasters that started in March (and are ongoing). Now, it’s also clearly […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:50:00 +0000

Oh, that sucks! I can see it in Poland..

hate that stuff

By: Rara

Rara — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:54:00 +0000

Funny: The youtube video cannot be seen in Europe, because somewhere it has…
MUSIC!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:14:00 +0000

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).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:09:00 +0000

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).

By: Giorgio Alba

Giorgio Alba — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:26:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:26:00 +0000

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.)

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:19:00 +0000

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.

By: Se200019841

Se200019841 — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:10:00 +0000

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!!

By: Jon_K

Jon_K — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:30:00 +0000

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 …