Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
59. In the time it takes to build one nuclear plant
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:00 PM
May 2012

And with a minor fraction of the resources need to build a single nuclear plant we can build either solar or wind turbine manufacturing capacity. For our example let's go with 2.5GW worth of 2.5MW wind turbines/year.

I selected 10 years for this example because this is the average time it would take to complete one nuclear plant project if it doesn't suffer delays - and they almost always do.

With this plan, at the end of ten years we should have produced and installed about 10,000 turbines, or 25 GWe of nameplate wind capacity.

I estimated the total amount of electricity produced as the turbines come online over time and at the end of that 10 years, operating at 33% capacity, they would have provided a cumulative total of approximately 389.7 TWh.

A 1GW nuclear plant actually produces about 7 TWh each year.

So, in the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.

Key point: 10 year total electricity generated by bringing the generators on line as the factory turns them out - 390TWh = 54 years worth of generation from the nuclear plant - almost its entire projected lifetime.



Now we are ready to bring the nuclear plant on line as scheduled and the picture is this; by devoting approximately the same resources to each technology we have, at the end of 10 years:

- 10,000 wind turbines producing 72 TWhs of electricity per year plus the 54 years worth of production from the nuclear plant that the wind turbines have already cranked out, or

- One nuclear plant ready to begin to producing 7TWh per year.


Key point: If your goal is REALLY to address climate change rather than cheerlead for a given industry, the preferred choice is obvious.



Given the standard 20 year life span for the turbines and assuming the plant continued production of the same product, this factory will max out it's contribution to growth of wind power at 50GWe when it hits the 20 year mark and starts to build replacements for those wearing out.

That 50GW of turbines should actually produce approximately 144 TWh of electricity every year.

50GW faceplate capacity X .33 capacity factor = 16.5GW of production

That 16.5GW equals approximately twenty (20) 1GW nuclear reactors operating at the international average capacity factor of about 80%.



Key point: Going forward the disparity in favor of wind only increases. and we have to repeat that IF your goal is REALLY to address climate change rather than cheerlead for a given industry, the preferred choice is obvious.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Misleading title/headline They_Live May 2012 #1
K&R & ditto on the terrible title. n/t Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #2
Wonderful malaise May 2012 #3
Would be much easier in the US DLnyc May 2012 #4
Yet solar produces only 4% of Germany's electricity use. Robb May 2012 #5
A 32,000% increase in the last decade. girl gone mad May 2012 #15
Earth's insects weigh more than all other animals put together. Robb May 2012 #17
Not only that Harmony Blue May 2012 #22
Could you clarify? 4th law of robotics May 2012 #91
The OP's source truncated the Reuters article Robb May 2012 #92
The news is good, but it isn't that good XemaSab May 2012 #6
Every source of generation requires "huge amounts of backup" kristopher May 2012 #8
So on one day for one minute solar contributed almost half the electrical needs for the country XemaSab May 2012 #9
What is currently providing it? kristopher May 2012 #10
I am not going to get into it with you right now XemaSab May 2012 #11
But the reserve can be organised to act for the entire grid muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #14
Thank you very much for that source. kristopher May 2012 #16
US generating capacity is about 1000 Gigawatts, almost all available at any time. FarCenter May 2012 #7
hmmm RobertEarl May 2012 #12
Reagan economic policy also seems popular on DU these days. girl gone mad May 2012 #18
You can probably get to about 50% solar and wind without a storage technology FarCenter May 2012 #19
Costs : Economics RobertEarl May 2012 #20
It costs more money to clean up the mess Harmony Blue May 2012 #23
Yes indeed RobertEarl May 2012 #24
It's not only money jeff47 May 2012 #33
Hate coal RobertEarl May 2012 #34
Cheerleading isn't going to invent anything jeff47 May 2012 #37
they do not need direct sun light to work and they do work in cloudy weather. Sea-Dog May 2012 #55
They work, but poorly jeff47 May 2012 #68
Really. ‘Absolute Black’ Solar Panels Absorb Almost All Sunlight Sea-Dog May 2012 #79
"Ain't that far away" is still not available today jeff47 May 2012 #81
This is today's technology getting cheaper all the time. In the market before the first brick on Sea-Dog May 2012 #95
Not talking about new nuclear plants, I'm talking about the push to close the old ones. jeff47 May 2012 #96
What do you not get about developed.. it is todays. Sea-Dog Jun 2012 #98
Producing a lab prototype is not the same as a product cheap enough to slap on everyone's house jeff47 Jun 2012 #99
What happens if your "air conditioner" is actually part of a home energy storage system? kristopher May 2012 #27
These things are possible, but they require huge amounts of capital to implement FarCenter May 2012 #29
Here's the difference kristopher May 2012 #30
There is huge resistance to hydro among environmentalists FarCenter May 2012 #65
Hydro is pretty much tapped out in the US jeff47 May 2012 #35
That's pretty much what I thought FarCenter May 2012 #39
We can already "turn off" Niagra Falls. jeff47 May 2012 #43
So you think 30gigawatts of easy to develop hydro is nothing? kristopher May 2012 #54
If I dam 30 small rivers, I can produce a lot of power jeff47 May 2012 #63
30 GW of distributed is 30 GW. You haven't read the studies. kristopher May 2012 #70
30 GW is 0 GW when you can't get the dam built. jeff47 May 2012 #72
I am enjoying watching the business majors try to argue with a physicist. girl gone mad May 2012 #84
Who in this discussion are the business majors and who is the physicist? XemaSab May 2012 #87
In California pretty much every drop is already spoken for XemaSab May 2012 #57
Post 54: DOE study says your claim isn't close to being accurate kristopher May 2012 #60
You're right, I don't know what I am talking about XemaSab May 2012 #61
At least you admit it. kristopher May 2012 #62
Is there a key for reading the assessment? XemaSab May 2012 #64
I'm digging through the report XemaSab May 2012 #69
Google Map - Massive Geothermal Potential Nationwide, “Effectively an Unlimited Supply” Says Chu kristopher May 2012 #73
Why are you changing the subject to geothermal? XemaSab May 2012 #74
The only problem with those 250 degree centigrade rocks is that they are 21,000 feet down. FarCenter May 2012 #78
No. jeff47 May 2012 #31
Nukes are the most difficult RobertEarl May 2012 #32
Because I a more concerned about climate change than nuclear accidents. jeff47 May 2012 #36
Nuke waste RobertEarl May 2012 #38
No, I'd reprocess it. jeff47 May 2012 #40
Talk about cheerleading RobertEarl May 2012 #42
The difference is I'm talking about technologies that already exist jeff47 May 2012 #45
I'm done with you RobertEarl May 2012 #47
You don't get to be done. jeff47 May 2012 #48
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #49
No, I'm asking questions. You are avoiding thinking about them jeff47 May 2012 #51
Troll this RobertEarl May 2012 #52
In the time it takes to build one nuclear plant kristopher May 2012 #59
That would be relevant if we were talking about building more nuclear plants. jeff47 May 2012 #71
Don't throw your straw man arguments at me. kristopher May 2012 #75
The posts are right there, until you delete them. jeff47 May 2012 #76
So how is this different from my perspective on nuclear, exactly? XemaSab May 2012 #77
You clearly do not have a clue about this topic kristopher May 2012 #56
So...you'd like me to more-or-less provide my home address so that I can jeff47 May 2012 #66
How is providing a resource assessment going to identify an address? kristopher May 2012 #80
I hope you'll someday notice the part in all my posts where I talk about base load. jeff47 May 2012 #82
Much of that hydro is Niagra, which has been in operation since the dawn of electricity FarCenter May 2012 #85
Selling electricity generated by the Sun can make money Rosa Luxemburg May 2012 #13
Third thread I'll copy this into... SidDithers May 2012 #21
Why do you hate solar? RobertEarl May 2012 #25
... SidDithers May 2012 #28
Dyson Spheres are the answer Angelshare1 May 2012 #83
How feasible are PV panels in space? cbrer Jun 2012 #100
Not so. What is misleading is to make "capacity factor" seem more important than it is. kristopher May 2012 #26
Uh.... jeff47 May 2012 #46
Energy storage is a problem with solar power. Selatius May 2012 #53
And if the guys working on fusion were further along, that could solve the problem too jeff47 May 2012 #67
Hopes and dreams? girl gone mad May 2012 #86
Did you not read the first sentence in the linked article? jeff47 May 2012 #93
No, but earth would dictate we would have to design one without gas and coal sooner than later. Selatius May 2012 #89
Word XemaSab May 2012 #97
This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab May 2012 #58
German Power Grids Increasingly Strained FarCenter May 2012 #41
Germany needs to be applauded for that. Trillo May 2012 #44
k&r... spanone May 2012 #50
ROFLMAO kristopher May 2012 #88
Great News! (nt) fascisthunter May 2012 #90
Should we buy a clue for $5.00 Alec? lonestarnot May 2012 #94
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TWENTY NUCLEAR POWER PLAN...»Reply #59