Comments on: 300,000 Jobs and $200 Billion Economic Potential from U.S. Offshore Wind

By: Marcacci Communications

Marcacci Communications — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:51:32 +0000

[…] North America is on course to finally join the global offshore market and capitalize upon the tremendous wind potential of its coastal waters. While annual capacity additions and annual investment are both near zero […]

By: Marcacci Communications

Marcacci Communications — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:54:10 +0000

[…] a recent report estimated US offshore wind’s potential at 300,000 jobs and $200 billion in new economic activity. Mid-Atlantic states seem to sense this […]

By: Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbines Can Power the Entire East Coast

Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbines Can Power the Entire East Coast — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:07:04 +0000

[…] as European nations, facing similar obstacles, continue to forge ahead.That’s despite the offshore wind energy generation potential of more than 1,300-gigawatts (GW). Harnessing “a realistic fraction” of just 52-GW “could […]

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:17:00 +0000

yep, wind turbines go up fast and cheaply.

one of their advantages.

projections change. the world will see within 20-50 years how many nukes get built vs how many wind turbines & solar panels get built.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:14:00 +0000

believe it or not, nuclear disasters happen. they happen less regularly than birthday, perhaps, but they happen. and that’s included in their capacity factor. and having to shut down because of heat waves is, as well. word on the street is, 330 months in a row of above average temps is a trend that will continue, and will only continue to hurt nuke capacity factors.

the idea that nukes won’t be shut down from disaster is idealistic thinking.
and a big point: such unpredictable shutdowns are a huge problem, more so than realizing that the sun comes up and goes down every day and planning around that is necessary.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:07:00 +0000

ditto.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:32:00 +0000

Well, you rised my brows, thanks. Boy, they are fast. However, 75 GW wind correspond to less than 20 GW nuc, and wind is no good for more than 15-20% of the share anyway. On top of that, that has nothing to do with nukes themselves; will is not lacking, problem is means. Bottleneck for nukes in China is lack of experience and operators. Wind is quick-fix solution in the fast developing county, they must get power by hook or by crook. And there is dilemma between old and tested French Gen II and new Gen III+ AP1000 nukes, that has to be resolved by performance of the first two reactors. That has nothing to do with Fuku.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:32:00 +0000

That has nothing to do with regular performance of nukes. This statistical drop in load factor is direct consequence of political decision to stop plants in Germany and Japan. Speaking about long-term, it is regularly over 90%.
As for swearing… It’s argument hands down.

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:51:00 +0000

It’s September 2012 and China has something like 75 gigawatts of wind capacity and nuclear power plants there have had a lot of down time lately for safety checks and reviews for some reason. Oh yeah, I remember why, Fukushima!

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:48:00 +0000

You said nuclear, not US nuclear. The capacity factor of nuclear in 2010 was 84.8% in 2010 and has gone down since then for some reason. Some Japanese guy swore at a nuclear worker called Shima or something.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:18:00 +0000

Wiki says for China 2011: nuc 1.94%, wind 0.26%.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:12:00 +0000

Wiki lists as typical capacity factors in USA:
Wind farms: 20-40%
PV: Mass 12-15%, Arizona 19%
Nuc 2010: 91.2 (for an aged, obsolete fleet!)

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:06:00 +0000

Wiki says for China 2011: nuc 1.94%, wind 0.26%.

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:24:00 +0000

Oh, and by the way, the capacity factor for nuclear isn’t 90%. It was 84.8% in 2010 and has taken a nose dive since then for some strange reason.

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:54:00 +0000

Predrag, I wrote generates. China generates more electricity from wind than nuclear. I would say that lecturing people about capacity factors while not even bothering to look up China’s wind generation could be classed as chutzpah.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:56:00 +0000

Actually predrag, you are wrong once more.

Wind farms are now turning in 50% capacity outputs with better siting and improvement in technology.

PV solar runs 18.8% to 29% ‘nameplate’ in the lower 48 except for a small stretch along the Pacific Northwest Coast, which just isn’t a good place for solar.

Nuclear is about 90% for the plants that are still running. But when they go tits up like Chrystal River and San Onofre they are 0%.

And what you aren’t saying (and well know that you should) is that realized capacity is not the important statistic, the important one is cents/kWh output. And there nuclear looses very big time, coming in at more expensive than solar and far, far more expensive than wind.

But thanks for playing. Collect your consolation prize at the door on your way out….

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:46:00 +0000

The dirty trick about clean energy is that its proponents always use rated power in their comparisons. However, for real production it has to be multiplied by load factor, i.e. ratio between average and rated (maximal) production. For nukes it’s over 0.9, for wind 0.2-0.3, for solar 0.1-0.25. So 1 GW of nuc rated power coresponds to 3-5 GW of wind or 4-10 GW of solar. Now make your comparisons.

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:15:00 +0000

So you are using China as an arguement against wind power when China generates more electricity from wind than from nuclear? Is this what chutzpah is?

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:05:00 +0000

Immerse in the history of technology and you’ll understand the trend.
There is nothing elegant in wind turbines, their simplicity is simplicity not of genius, but of simpleton. They go against the grain of all good engineering.
As for simplicity, nukes are simplicity itself, if you understand them. And they are based on well tested technology, attested by their octagenarian life span.
As for tonnes of steel, windmills use 20-100x more steel for equal power. Just for illustration: a pilot for offshore windmill of 5 MW rated power (or 1.5 MW averaged over the year) weights over 700 mt. The reactor vessel of EPR1600 (about 1500 MW of average power, or 1000x as much), weights about 450 mt.
Not everything simple is elegant. Sometimes it’s just stupid.
As for repository, it’s just another myth. No repository worthy of its name is needed at all. So called “waste” is not waste at all, but simple fuel for next generation of reactors. Only idiot could dump this valubale resource underground. Let it safely stay in dry casks, waiting for its time.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 05:47:00 +0000

Yes, uranium and thorium could run out, by according to my calculations in about billion years — if only terrestrial sources are taken into account.
Uranium is, by the way, a renewable resource, as each year rivers bring about 40 000 of it into world oceans. Breeders could make extraction worthwhile (they are almost insensitive to cost of uranium), and 40 000 t of U correspond to about 80 billion of mt of oil or 120 billions of mt of coal, about enough to bring up all the world to US level of power consumption and then some.
As for Germany, read Spiegel Online (in English). It’s total disaster. The passing of another great nation. This hysteria will cost them almost as the last one.
Well, about American greatness. USA is a great nation. The problem is that it is not the only one, as many Americans are too often inclined to think. And surely too peculiar that could serve as a model and indicator for the rest of the world.