In short, nuclear is no longer fiscally acceptable, if it was then these Utilities would fund them themselves instead on requiring Gov’t. guarantees!

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2012/10/22/43139/909
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2012/12/20/181630/07

…and why anyone would quote the Telegraph with a straight face as a source for anything at all also escapes me.

There’s another piece of data which is actually correct but is misused. Some European wind farms are being repowered after 15 years or so.

That is not due to turbine failure, but advances in turbine size/technology combined with limited real estate resources. It’s paying to take down smaller, shorter rigs and replacing them with much taller, larger swept area units.

Those removed turbines are refurbished and sold on to countries with larger wind resources and less capital to invest in energy production. It’s a good way to increase wind penetration in Europe and a great way to get some wind supply up and running in less developed countries.

Watch for people claiming that Germany’s/whosoever turbines have worn out after 10-15 years and have to be replaced. It’s a convenient lie.

“the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

I’ve posted some annual performance data for combined wind farms. Let me post some for individual wind farms. See if you can spot a decline toward 11% after 15 years.

What one can see is that 2010 was a relatively poor wind year which dropped annual output for older and newer wind farms.

And that as wind technology improves the annual performance (CF) of wind farms is increasing.

Did Hughes draw a straight line from year 1 through 2010 and project a drop to 11%? If so, he would have to put his thumb over the 2011 CF.

And why do they last hundreds of years around the Northsea ( that’s where Denmark is) ?

This one was blown down during the recent stormy weather, it was errected in 1692 and repowered in 1856, the local historian club renovated it last year again:

http://www.nonstopnews.de/meldung/17779

picture gallery:

http://www.nonstopnews.de/galerie/17779

There are many Danish windmills standing since centuries as well.

To get to an average life-time of ten years (see the Telegraph’s trash-data) would mean that new windmills get blown away within hours after installation ? Must be British …:)

Hughes claim is bull.

Nuclear power is a better deal.

These are the data points plotted from the database cited in Hughes’s report. He engages in some sort of statistical voodoo to show that the wind farms are failing after 10-15 years. People who have tried to figure out his math state that it does not calculate.

Just try to find any data that supports it.

Hughes wrote some real garbage that the data base he cites does not support.

The performance drop Hughes records can’t be due to the towers and rotor blades, and can presumably be fixed with a partial rebuild of the generator and gearbox. This would cost far less than a new turbine. Though sometimes it’s a better deal to rebuild completely on the same site.