Capacity factor is not a measure of reliability or usefulness. For example a coal power plant mostly works at full capacity an thus has a high capacity factor, but it cannot respond quickly to a changing demand. A hydro plant with dam can respond quickly to changes in demand, but will mostly work below rated level. Especially in arid regions solar power will be well correlated to demand and thus more useful than a coal or nuclear plant that produces day and night at the same level.

The only boondoggle I see around here is your information level.

Wind is lowering the cost of electricity in Texas. Solar is lowering the cost of electricity in Germany. Got to get enough on line to move the dial. When that happens old tech starts to die off.

Cheaper, cleaner electricity is coming to your grid.

Thank liberals….

We need neither.

We’ve got far more energy available from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and biomass/fuel than we could ever use.

Old people dying don’t count?

It’s a bit early to declare that no one died from radiation effects at Fukushima. Cancer doesn’t appear overnight.

See my posting above. Land purchase, planning, evictions, paying overheads is part of the planning process.

Therefore the building took 28 years.

The Chinese atomic mafia changed the plans several times, put the project on hold, started again, found faults, no money, corruption, demolished, started all over again.

28 years it took from evicting the farmers to get the first kWh delivered.

There are many similar projects in the list of the IAEA.

The very long “under construction” projects (more than 20 or 25 years) they moved from the list last year.

When they had the funny idea to delist the idled and exploded Japanese reactors from the list the numbers of atomic reactors “on-line” dropped by more than 10 % globally.

That did not look nice, so the jokers put the 40something Japanese time bombs back on their list of global atomic capacity.

Despite they aren’t delivering but consuming electricity!

Your BP papers claiming an 80something percentage of full availability of atomic power plants are for toilet paper.

Independant statistics please. And no advertising trash.

Get used to the term “under construction” before using/posting it.
We all have seen to much of constructed reality from the atomic mafia.

Read the IAEO statistics and compare them with reality as you see it before quoting them.

We call that media competence……

Here the French state body for electricity (and energy) giving a 66% availability for atomic power for yesterday:

Actual generation:

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_production.jsp

On-line yesterday:

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/parc_reference.jsp

Note that non-delivering atomic power plants are huge electricity consumers themself.

Here the German body eex, the electricity exchange, showing an avaiability of 64% for yesterday, there 12.1GW of installed capacity:

http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/Voluntary%20Commitment%20of%20the%20Market%20Participants/Power%20generation/Previous-day-generation

In Japan there are 2 atomic reactors at the moment working/delivering to the grid. They produce together only a fraction of what the atomic industry needs to cover their own demand. A so called minus-availability.
Put that into a global context.

As you can see those who post here are informed and no advertising clowns.

Now bring us the Scandinavian numbers, the British, Dutch and Belgian.

And no advertising material please.

Spare us Readers Digest, the results of digestion we had enough of from the atomic mafia’s aprentice boys here.

No he didn’t.

Look up “latency period, radiation”.

Construction started in 2008 and commission date is December 2012. So even if they have started in January 2008, its less than 5 years. Why are you saying 28 years.

Compared to this nuclear is far more safer. Big Oil and King Coal are scaremongering the people and these environmental groups are just joining them.

Just make a simple calculation.

12 hours a day is full darkness, so reduce to 50%.

Cloudy, Rainy, Snowy days take away another 20%, so reduce to 30%.

In the early mornings and late evenings, when sunlight does not beam on the panels, output is lesser, so reduce to 20%.

Only the utility scale panels on the ground track the sun and has higher efficiency, but much of the roof top panels especially in Europe don’t track and misses lot of light. Now you can agree.

Note : Germany and Italy are much north of USA.

Check the Solar Radiation in USA.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi

don’t get personally concerned about this before you have actually, properly, calculated the risk to you as an individual — risk perspective being something human beings are known to be very poor at.

If, in the past, you didn’t choose your domicile based on the level of natural background radiation there, then you should exercise the same common sense also now. You know, the foreigners fleeing out of Japan immediately after the disaster received more radiation on their flight out than they would ever have gotten from Fukushima, had they chosen to stay!

Now of course, on the population level the situation and the responsibilities are different, as it is in the actual disaster zone. But for individuals, there is nothing to fear but fear itself: you will die in the end, there is a fair chance that it will be of cancer, and it will with near-100% certainty not be due to Fukushima.

Note that some of the computations he does are questionable. Not only does he accept the 4000 estimate as global, he divides it over future global nuclear production for 1985-2030! Of course attribution should be to past nuclear production at 1985. Doing it properly would produce something like 2.8 deaths/TWh instead of the 0.04 he finds. This is way more than the fractional numbers he finds for renewables, and more in line with natural gas.

OTOH of course taking a single event as representative for the whole nuclear industry is questionable. Compared to the Western nuclear industry, Chernobyl was very atypical. But, if we want nuclear to be the world’s baseload, most of the new capacity will be in countries whose safety culture may represent that of the Soviet Union more than ours… I expect the next big nuke accident to happen in China.

And we haven’t talked proliferation yet.

Others have not been so squamish: 34,000 globally, or 18,000 for Europe.

Same with Fukushima: zero is the number of death certificates reading “Fukushima”, not the number of deaths…

We will never know the precise number, but prudent policy considers best estimates based on the best science available.

Now, I could mention that contrary to wind and solar, a nuclear reactor manages only 30% thermodynamic efficiency — throwing 70% away, into the environment as waste heat.

…and when I look at the main road leading into my city, I see that even during rush hour, half of the lanes are almost empty. Morning rush our, one half, evening rush hour, the other half. And outside rush hour, both lanes are almost empty… not a good ‘capacity factor’, that. Still I would call this a useful road

There are many ways of presenting numbers…

” Capacity Factor : 88.35 % ”

That statement is plain rubbish.

Check the published numbers of the national grid operators around the globe.

This capacity factor number is a theoretical value based on ‘idealised calculations’. Advertising material.

It assumes for example that an atomic powerplant reaches it full life time. Only a few do so.

That BP is downplaying the capacity of PV and wind – who would have thought so?

Their own ‘success’ in the PV industry lead to these meager results I suppose?
Billions they sank. ‘Proving’ that PV doesn’t work.

In 1985 the people living there were evicted, the planning started, the site was layed out.

You are obviously unfamiliar with building processes, esp. in the atomic industry.

Planning and sit preparation are part of the building process.

Check the IAE reports from before 2000, Ningde is stated there as “under construction”.

———–

In England Hinkley Point C is “under construction”. Since a long time.

Costing every day £ 1 Million.

And not even a fence errected.

This propaganda of the IEA ( China has 28 reactors under construction ) is used by the duds who do not realise what the term “under construction” means: it costs money, consumes electricity and doesn’t deliver a single Watthour. At the very moment!

As said: £1 Million per day to list a mafia project in the IEA list

See

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Fresh-blow-Hinkley-Point-C-nuclear-reactor-build/story-18790229-detail/story.html#axzz2ZTpqtcOK

http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-oil-sands-flyover-2012-5?op=1

Although why I’m bothering to reply to an obvious trolling shill, I don’t know.

Not to mention the huge pile of radioactive debris that still needs to be cleaned up and the large exclusion zone around it where a large number of people will probably never be able to return to their homes again.

So why don’t you try coming over here to Japan and try telling some of the people who’ve had their lives completely overturned by the disaster that nuclear power is “safe”? I’m sure they’d just love to hear it.

But really, go ahead and believe what you want. No matter how much you delude yourself, it doesn’t matter in the long run. Nuclear power is dead. It’s no longer viable, economically, politically, or technologically. Dead dead dead!

The fossil fuel, utility and nuclear industries have done their best to push back on PV deployment for the last 30 years. However, mankind can live in ignorance only for so long, specially with the widespread communication capabilities of today, around the world. You can not compete with free for long; silicon and solar power are essentially free … much freer than free beer.