Conventional Nuclear (AKA Nuclear Fission) a thread for discussion of the pros / cons.

    Quote from Calliban

    The reason the PWR figures are so low compared to competing energy sources is the high power density of nuclear systems. Below is a link detailing the primary circuit component volumes for a VVER-1000 power plant.

    The circuit component size is only one thing to consider. There is also the containment building and the cooling towers. Plus, most nuclear plants must have a large area around them unoccupied, for security. Quoting a pro-nuclear site:


    "The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land, often with a buffer space of land area of at least 1 square mile."


    Wind power to nuclear power infographic comparison


    This author thinks that wind turbines take up much more room than the nuclear plant. That is incorrect. He calculated the space incorrectly. First, he said the capacity factor is 25%. It is closer to 30%, but let us take it as 25%. That means it would take 2,077 2-MW wind turbines to equal one nuclear power plant. Wind turbine tower bases range from 4.3 m to 6.2 m in diameter to 6.2 m. 6.2 m is 19.5 m^2, times 2,077 towers equals 40,435 m^2. That's 10 acres, 5 times less than the nuclear plant. The wind turbines do not need a buffer space of 1 square mile. 1 square mile is 2.596 million square meters. So, the nuclear plant takes up roughly 64 time more space than the wind turbines. Granted, you can use the nuclear plant buffer space for other purposes, such as agriculture, but the same goes for the wind turbines. All of the space around the base of the tower is available for other purposes.


    The graphic also wrong because it says wind turbines only last 20 years. The blades in some units last 20 years. The generators last 30 to 40 years, and the towers probably 100 years. The tower is by far the largest and most expensive component.


    Also, this graphic lists the size at 2-MW, which may have been the case in 2012, but it is now 2.5 MW for land-based towers.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Wind turbine tower bases range from 4.3 m to 6.2 m in diameter to 6.2 m. 6.2 m is 19.5 m^2, times 2,077 towers equals 40,435 m^2.

    Wind turbines take up a terrific amount of space in the sky. But that area starts well above most houses and buildings. You cannot put a building directly under a tower, but you can put a barn 50 meters away. You cannot build tall buildings close to towers. In other words, the use of the land in a wind farm is somewhat restricted, but the land can still be used for a much wider range of purposes than the 50 acres of land a nuclear reactor takes up, or the 1 square miles buffer zone around it. Also, there is no danger from wind turbines, whereas several nuclear reactors in the U.S. have leaked radioactive debris into the surroundings, and after decommissioning the land cannot be used for agriculture.


    Needless to say, the Fukushima accident contaminated very large areas of land. Coal fired plants create gigantic piles of coal ash, which causes accidents and environmental destruction. Nothing like that would ever happen from wind or solar power.


    The wind turbines I have seen in Yamaguchi and Hiroshima prefectures in Japan were placed on high hills and other locations where you cannot build houses or farm the land.

    Jed Rothwell wrote: "The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land, often wth a buffer space of land area of at least 1 square mile."


    By that estimate, a nuclear power plant has 1000x the area power density of a solar power plant and 2000x the area power density of a wind farm. Making NPPs more compact hasn't been a priority, because the cost of 50 acres of land is trivial compared to the economic value of the electricity. A good example of a volume optimised nuclear power plant is a submarine. The area covered by a solar PV plant isn't land that you can live on or use for anything else. You could farm the land covered by wind farms. I doubt many people would want to live there.


    Jed Rothwell wrote: "The graphic also wrong because it says wind turbines only last 20 years. The blades in some units last 20 years. The generators last 30 to 40 years, and the towers probably 100 years. The tower is by far the largest and most expensive component"


    You don't know that. Wind turbine towers are flexural steel structures that have a fatigue life. Oil rigs are marine steel structures. Fatigue and corrosion limit their life to about 20 years. You will find most container ships get about the same. Wind turbine towers take higher flexural loads than either of these and they are usually in coastal or offshore environments.


    Jed Rothwell wrote: "Needless to say, the Fukushima accident contaminated very large areas of land. Coal fired plants create gigantic piles of coal ash, which causes accidents and environmental destruction. Nothing like that would ever happen from wind or solar power."


    Actually, it does happen every time you build a wind farm or solar power plant. The materials used to build these things doesn't just appear out of nowhere. They have to be mined out of the ground. Most of the world's solar panels are made in Xinjiang, the Uigyer region of China. They are made here because the Chinese can use forced labour to mine otherwise stranded coal reserves. This is what is needed to produce such bulky equipment so cheaply. The copper tailings, rare earth mining waste and coal ash, release as much radioactivity into the environment as a major nuclear accident.

    Quote from Calliban

    Jed Rothwell wrote: "The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land, often wth a buffer space of land area of at least 1 square mile."


    By that estimate, a nuclear power plant has 1000x the area power density of a solar power plant and 2000x the area power density of a wind farm.

    Nope. Your arithmetic is wrong. In the other thread I posted the correct numbers. 1 square mile = 640 acres. Measured over the course of one year (day and night), the average U.S. solar park of 640 acres produces 25.6 MW. That's 39 times less than the nuke, not 1000. Your numbers for the wind farm are totally wrong, because the only land area take up by a wind farm is the base of the wind tower. The rest is up in the air. Where there is nothing. Wind farms take about 10 acres total for the equivalent of a 1154 MW nuke (according to the American Nuclear Society). That's 64 times less space, not 2000 times more space.


    The area power density of the area in the sky swept by the blades is totally irrelevant, because that area could not be used for anything. Unless you built very tall buildings there. People do not build very tall buildings in the middle of nowhere in Iowa, where 42% of electricity comes from wind. All they have is farms. Farms with wind turbines that take up much less space than a single barn. Of course the wind farms stretch across hundreds of acres, but they take up no space on the ground.


    Also, you are forgetting that any large U.S. city could produce a large fraction of its electricity from solar taking up no space at all. No space is a lot less space than a nuclear plant. No space for the plant, and no space for the distribution grid and high tension wires. Nukes are built far from cities, because they are dangerous. The power has to be transmitted 50 to 100 miles. Some of the power is lost, and those transmission wires take up a lot of space. Electricity from solar panels on roofs is not transmitted anywhere, unless there is more than the house or building can use at that moment.

    I have never heard of this 1-mile exclusion zone you are talking about. It isn't like nuclear power plants have got a mile of land around them that no one can use for anything else. Most of the licenced sites I have been to have farmland around the site boundary. Some, like naval bases, have houses literally feet from the site boundary. If possible, it is advantageous to put them in rural areas away from urban centres. It makes accident planning easier. But it isn't always the case. The sites themselves are not built to minimise the use of space. That's not because it isn't possible. It isn't a priority. For wind and solar power, those space requirements and the huge materials budgets are inevitable because they are inherent to how these things work.


    There is no way wind farms take up 64 times less space as a nuclear power plants per unit capacity. How on Earth did you arrive at that estimate? The maximum achievable power density of a wind farm is 2-3W/m2. That limit is imposed by wind shadowing. A wind farm with turbines at the maximum possible density will need about 500km2 to produce 1000MW of average power. These are facts. They aren't negotiable. They aren't things that you can argue your way out of! Neither are the the steel and concrete requirements of powerplants. Some things just are what they are.

    Here is an example of the most recent one wind farm opened in the U.S., the Traverse Wind Energy Centre, Oklahoma, US. Stats:


    356 towers

    998 MW nameplate

    3.8 million MWh/year expected output

    222,000 acres (890 km^2)


    Output of 3.8 million MWh/year comes to 433 MW average 24/7. That's about 48% of an average U.S. nuke, when you take into account the capacity factor of the nuke, which does not operate all year long. It has to be refueled. 433 MW is 43% of the the nameplate capacity of the wind turbines, as you see. More than wind turbines produced years ago, because they are higher in the sky.


    At 19.5 m^2 ground area per tower, that's 6943 m^2, which is 3% of the overall area of the wind farm. It is 0.007 km^2. The rest is available to do whatever they do in Blain and Custer counties, Oklahoma. Blain has a population of 8,735, land area 2,430 km^2. Custer is 2,560 km^2. 11,295 km^2 total. So I guess they have space for the wind farm. It is either taking up 8% of their land, or 0.00006%, depending on how you look at it. If you look at actual land that cannot be used for farming or anything else, it is 0.00006%.


    Note that 356 towers is many fewer than the American Nuclear Society estimated in 2012. The ANS thought the capacity factor was 25%, and they said the nameplate capacity per turbine was 2 MW. In this case the capacity factor is 43% and the nameplate capacity is 2.3 to 2.8 MW. (Ref. 1 below.) Nameplate capacity has increased since 2012. Anyway, the ANS estimated it would take 2077 towers for a 1154 MW nuke equivalent. They did take into account the capacity factor of a nuke, which is ~90%. Adjusting for the actual output of this wind farm, their estimate is 1038 MW 24/7.This wind farm is 42% of that 24/7. So they thought it would take 866 towers. But it is only 356.


    Wind turbines take about 600 tones of steel according to someone who opposes them. Not much else. That's 320,400 tons for these 356 towers. Several sources say that nukes take less. For example:


    Steel will play an important role in all renewables, including and especially solar and wind. Each new MW of solar power requires between 35 to 45 tons of steel, and each new MW of wind power requires 120 to 180 tons of steel.


    Steel is the power behind renewable energy | ArcelorMittal
    Steel is the power behind renewable energy
    corporate.arcelormittal.com


    Steel costs ~$700/ton, so that $101,500 more per megawatt, a not inconsiderable sum. It is not clear whether this is nameplate or actual. If it nameplate, the steel is costing about $100 million more than the steel in a nuke. A lot of money, yes, but not compared to the $16 billion the Georgia Plant Vogtle is costing so far (for 998 MW nameplate).


    Sources


    Projects Archive - NS Energy


    'The sound of money': Wind energy is booming in deep-red Republican states - ABC17NEWS
    By Ella Nilsen Photos by Will Lanzoni Data Visuals by John Keefe Driving west from Oklahoma City to the outskirts of Weatherford, wind turbines don’t just dot…
    abc17news.com


    Wind power to nuclear power infographic comparison

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Also, this graphic lists the size at 2-MW, which may have been the case in 2012, but it is now 2.5 MW for land-based towers.

    In fact it is 6..12 MW today.


    Also important for nuke versus solar is:: From 1000 MW nukes power 10% is wasted in the high power grid and an other 10% in the local grid. So what you get is just 80% of the power. With local solar is close to 100%!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Wind turbines take about 600 tones of steel according to someone who opposes them. Not much else. That's 320,400 tons for these 356 towers.

    May be once use a calculator...6* 356 is ???

    I left out some numbers from the above. I may have got the numbers wrong.


    I looked up the amount of steel per megawatt of capacity for nuclear plants. I think it is around 45 tons/MW. Various sources say it has increased a great deal since the 1970s. It depends on the type of reactor. Quote:


    "For example, the vertical PBMR design uses 3 times concrete and 2 times steel per MW electric output as GT-MHR uses. Although there exists large difference in reactor and power conversion system designs, PBMR and GT-MHR have similar operating pressure and highest temperature."

    https://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf


    Anyway, a low-ball estimate is ~45 tons. Wind turbines take 180 tons/MW according to the above source. So, a wind turbine takes 135 tons more steel than a nuke. I am guessing that is for nameplate capacity, not actual. Steel reportedly costs $700 per ton today. It has gone up. The typical actual output of a nuke is 900 MW (90% capacity factor) so the steel presumably costs 900 MW * 45 tons * $700 = $28.4 million. Right? The capacity factor for the above new wind farm is 43%. So, to get 900 actual megawatts, you need 2093 MW nameplate capacity. That, I assume costs 2093 MW * 180 tons * $700 = $264 million. ~$236 million more than the nuke. For the same amount of actual delivered electricity. That's a lot of money, but nothing compared to the Vogtle cost overruns, or the initial estimate of $7 billion per gigawatt.


    Looking at the overall mass of concrete and steel, years ago I read that hydroelectric dams take the most, followed by nukes, and wind was below that. Perhaps that is not the case. Note that concrete is cheap, $50 to $75/ton.



    Here is an estimate from 2005,which has a much higher estimate of the amount of steel per megawatt of wind turbine megawatt. Perhaps this is actual, not nameplate. Quote:


    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…lot-of-nuclear-power.html

    From Per F. Peterson, Department of Nuclear Engineering. The Future of Nuclear Energy Policy: A California Perspective 2005 [original source not found]


    Nuclear power plants built in the 1970’s used 40 metric tons of steel, and 190 cubic meters of concrete, for each megawatt of average capacity. [Other sources say this has increased since the 1970s. Not sure how much.]

    Modern wind energy systems, with good wind conditions, take 460 metric tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt.

    Modern central-station coal plants take 98 metric tons of steel and 160 cubic meters of concrete—almost double the material needed to build nuclear power plants. This is due to the massive size of coal plant boilers and pollution control equipment.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    "For example, the vertical PBMR design uses 3 times concrete and 2 times steel per MW electric output as GT-MHR uses. Although there exists large difference in reactor and power conversion system designs, PBMR and GT-MHR have similar operating pressure and highest temperature."

    After Fukushima (In fact already after the Niigata quake but not enforced) the vertical g factor first limited to 0.25 has been elevated to 2 !! this needs at least 10..60 x more steel for the base plate and supporting walls/containment.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    In fact it is 6..12 MW today.

    What is 6.12 MW? The turbines at the Traverse Wind Energy Centre are 2.3 to 2.8 MW, according to Ref. 1.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Also important for nuke versus solar is:: From 1000 MW nukes power 10% is wasted in the high power grid and an other 10% in the local grid.

    Average U.S. transmission and distribution losses are 5% total (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t-3). Nukes may be above average because they are built far from population centers. As noted, for rooftop solar T&D losses are zero! Some wind and solar farms are distant, and some are close. The new one in Oklahoma looks close to the population centers.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    12 MW .. from 500 "GE men and women"... part of GE's DNA..gee!

    GE’s Haliade-X 12 MW, the World’s Most Powerful Offshore Wind Turbine, Produces Its First kWh | GE News

    That is astounding. This press release is from 2019. They are going to install 300 of these gadgets in the "3,600 MW Dogger Bank offshore windfarm in the UK." That's 130 km offshore (https://doggerbank.com/). The GE press release says one of these turbines produces up 67 GWh per year. If I have done my arithmetic right, that is a capacity factor of 64%. Twice as good as a typical land installation. That is because trade winds 120 km out at sea are strong and reliable, as I said.


    If the capacity factor is 64%, the Dogger Bank windfarm will produce ~2268 MW on average, as much as the two nukes being constructed in Georgia. Total estimated cost is $11 billion USD, or about 1/3rd of the Georgia nukes. Construction began in 2021 with the first units online in 2023. I expect it will be on time. Windfarm construction is generally on schedule. Manufacturing and erecting wind turbines is like building large skyscrapers. It is difficult, but well understood, without the kind of unanticipated problems and surprises that have plagued the Georgia nuke.


    Dogger Bank Wind Farms, North Sea, United Kingdom


    In 2019 the EIA called offshore wind "The only variable baseload power generation technology," which seems like a contradiction of terms. If it's variable it ain't baseload. What they mean is, quote:


    Offshore Wind Outlook 2019 – Analysis - IEA
    Offshore Wind Outlook 2019 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
    www.iea.org


    Offshore wind is in a category of its own, as the only variable baseload power generation technology. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors of 40%-50%, as larger turbines and other technology improvements are helping to make the most of available wind resources.

    At these levels, offshore wind matches the capacity factors of efficient gas-fired power plants, coal-fired power plants in some regions, exceeds those of onshore wind and is about double those of solar PV.


    Offshore wind output varies according to the strength of the wind, but its hourly variability is lower than that of solar PV. Offshore wind typically fluctuates within a narrower band, up to 20% from hour-to-hour, than is the case for solar PV, up to 40% from hour-to-hour.


    Offshore wind is in a category of its own, as the only variable baseload power generation technology. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors of 40%-50%, as larger turbines and other technology improvements are helping to make the most of available wind resources.


    At these levels, offshore wind matches the capacity factors of efficient gas-fired power plants, coal-fired power plants in some regions, exceeds those of onshore wind and is about double those of solar PV. [Apparently they put PV capacity factors at 20% to 25%, which I suppose is for arid or desert installations in the U.S. southwest.]


    Offshore wind output varies according to the strength of the wind, but its hourly variability is lower than that of solar PV. Offshore wind typically fluctuates within a narrower band, up to 20% from hour-to-hour, than is the case for solar PV, up to 40% from hour-to-hour.



    It also says:


    Key findings

    Offshore wind's remarkable potential

    The global offshore wind market grew nearly 30% per year between 2010 and 2018, benefitting from rapid technology improvements and about 150 new offshore wind projects are in active development around the world. Europe in particular has fostered the technology’s development, led by the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark, but China added more capacity than any other country in 2018.

    Yet today's offshore wind market doesn't even come close to tapping the full potential – with high-quality resources available in most major markets, offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420 000 TWh per year worldwide.

    This is more than 18 times global electricity demand today.



    End quote.


    . . . So much for the notion that we are "running out of energy" or that "renewables cannot supply all the energy we need." This one source can supply 18 times more electricity than we now consume, which is far more total primary energy than we consume.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This one source can supply 18 times more electricity than we now consume, which is far more total primary energy than we consume.

    What I said is confusing, because electricity is not primary energy. The Lawrence Livermore energy flowchart illustrates what I had in mind:



    https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2022-04/Energy_2021_United-States_0.png


    The U.S. consumes 97.3 quads of primary energy. 36.6 (37%) are used to generate electricity. Given the limits of Carnot efficiency, T&D losses and whatnot, this produces only 12.9 quads of useful energy, with 23.7 quads of "rejected energy" (waste heat). Overall useful energy in all sectors is 31.8 quads, rejected energy is 65.4 quads (67%). Transportation is the most inefficient sector, because gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) efficiency is so low. Replacing ICE with electric cars would reduce automotive primary energy consumption by a factor of 4. That is even with today's low efficiency electric power generation.


    Okay, if we increase electric power generation using offshore wind turbines, we could produce 18 times more electricity than we now consume. In the U.S., that would be 232 quads, which is much more total energy than all 97.3 quads of primary energy we now consume. More to the point, all 232 quads would be useful energy. All would be high grade electricity. The only rejected energy would be from T&D losses, or storage I guess. Battery storage losses are small. Electricity can be converted into any other form of energy with low losses. Converting heat to electricity is only 30% to 60% efficient, but converting electricity to heat with a resistance heater is close to 100% efficient. Converting mechanical energy to electricity with a wind or water turbine is efficient, but not as efficient as converting electricity to mechanical energy with an electric motor.


    In other words, having all of your energy start as electricity means you need far less energy overall. "Rejected Energy" is minimal; nearly all joules of energy go to useful "Energy Services."


    Of course, in the case of wind turbines, you are actually starting with mechanical energy from wind and converting it to electricity. It does not actually start with 232 quads of electric power. But that mechanical energy is available in practically unlimited amounts, from nature. People do not have to generate it. It consumes no fuel. Wind turbines convert 20% to 40% of the mechanical energy of moving air into electricity. But since there is an unlimited amount of moving air, the 60% of moving air that goes past the turbine blades does not matter.


    (This analysis is for the U.S., not the whole world, but the proportions are about the same.)

    Quote from Calliban

    You don't know that. Wind turbine towers are flexural steel structures that have a fatigue life.

    I do not know that, but the experts at the DoE and all of the companies that construct towers say that is the case. They probably know more about this than you do.

    Quote from Calliban

    Actually, it does happen every time you build a wind farm or solar power plant. The materials used to build these things doesn't just appear out of nowhere. They have to be mined out of the ground.

    That is true, but the steel is recycled indefinitely. So, once you mine enough to make all wind turbine towers, you do not need to mine more. It is not contaminated with radioactivity the way steel, concrete and other materials in a nuclear power plant are.

    Quote from Calliban

    I have never heard of this 1-mile exclusion zone you are talking about.

    As you see, that information comes from the American Nuclear Society (ans.org). That is the world's preeminent source of information on nuclear power, and it is very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. So, they probably know more about nuclear reactors than you do. You have never heard of this, but they have.


    Anyone who has seen a nuclear power plant will have seen it has empty land around it, so I am surprised you did not know this.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I do not know that, but the experts at the DoE and all of the companies that construct towers say that is the case. They probably know more about this than you do.

    Show me a reference. What you are saying would be a significant departure from past experience of flexural steel structures in a marine environment. A wind turbine tower is subject to severe and frequent bending stresses from gusts. It is especially vulnerable to corrosion fatigue.


    "That is true, but the steel is recycled indefinitely. So, once you mine enough to make all wind turbine towers, you do not need to mine more."


    You and I both know that recycling is imperfect at best. Only a fraction of steel can be recovered and recycled. For offshore wind, it will be much more difficult, dangerous and expensive to retrieve turbines at end of life. And there is no removing the reinforced concrete monopile from the sea bed. Assuming you recycle steel, you don't get the same alloy properties from recycled steel. Which is why for a lot of applications, virgin steel is preferred. Turbine blades are not recyclable. They are either burned or chopped up and sent to landfill. The concrete is not recyclable. Only a portion of steel reinforcing in conccrete is recyclable. Copper is heavily recycled. I am unsure about rare earth's in these applications.


    "It is not contaminated with radioactivity the way steel, concrete and other materials in a nuclear power plant are."


    Only a tiny proportion of steel and concrete in a nuclear power plant is radioactive or contaminated. Essentially, it is the interior of the primary circuit and about a hundred cubic metres of shielding concrete around the core. The primary circuit is extremely compact. You would know that if you actually researched the matter. Part of me suspects you actually did know that.


    "As you see, that information comes from the American Nuclear Society (ans.org). That is the world's preeminent source of information on nuclear power, and it is very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. So, they probably know more about nuclear reactors than you do. You have never heard of this, but they have.


    Anyone who has seen a nuclear power plant will have seen it has empty land around it, so I am surprised you did not know this."


    I am a safety engineer, with degrees in mechanical engineering, nuclear engineering, fire engineering and systems engineering. I have had plenty of exposure to both nuclear and renewable electricity technologies over my career. I have also built my own home wind power system to power my workshop, a solar heating system for household hot water and I am designing a atmospheric steam engine for combined heat and power. I am no stranger to nuclear sites and I have worked on many of them. They are typically surrounded by farmland, not abandoned wasteland. It is desirable to avoid building houses too close to the perimeter fence, because it complicates emergency planning. But that doesn't mean the land around the plant is useless, anymore than the land occupied by wind turbines is useless for other things. The situation is really no different to a wind farm. You wouldn't want to live too close to one of these because of the danger of blades being shed and the disruption resulting from the constant noise.


    I grow increasingly suspicious of your posts. You appear to cherry pick information to support technologies that you advocate, apparently for aesthetic and emotional reasons that have nothing to do with how well these systems work in the real world. And you embrace unsupported assumptions when it favours what you are advocating. That sort of idealism is toxic. It ends up obscuring the truth in order to push preordained solutions. It is exactly this way of thinking that has led us into the energy crisis we are in. If this board is worth anything, it is to get to the truth of things rather than obscure it with sophistry, to defend pet ideas and technologies.

    Quote from Calliban

    Show me a reference. What you are saying would be a significant departure from past experience of flexural steel structures in a marine environment.

    The paper I read said that land-based towers may last 100 years. I don't think it discussed offshore ones. I wouldn't know about them. At this point I will suggest you "do your own research" as the anti-vaxxer lunatics say. You can find papers at the DoE and the EIA as easily as I can.

    Quote from Calliban

    Only a tiny proportion of steel and concrete in a nuclear power plant is radioactive or contaminated.

    Yet they bury the entire kit and caboodle. Perhaps that is out of an abundance of caution.

    Quote from Calliban

    I am no stranger to nuclear sites and I have worked on many of them. They are typically surrounded by farmland, not abandoned wasteland.

    I do not think it is used for farmland. I don't know what purpose it can be used for. You can use Google maps to have a look. You can probably read about it at the ANS, or some other authoritative site. I think you should do that. It is more productive than arguing with me, as if I were the one who makes the rules. Along the same lines, you keep saying I am wrong about the economics and physics of solar and wind power. As if I were somehow in charge the power companies. As I pointed out to you, the managers and engineers at these companies have decided that this year, 46% of their new capacity will be solar (21.5 GW), and 17% wind (7.6 GW). That's a lotta gigawatts! You say these people don't know what they are doing, but I suppose they know more about this than you do. You are not challenging me, you are challenging them.


    Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022
    www.eia.gov

    Factors to consider:


    I agree with Jed that offshore wind is an enormous resource we are starting to tap.

    • What astonished me is how better mundane technology - with very large turbines - is driving down costs.
    • PV of course is technology which has improved, and is still improving, enormously in terms of both efficiency and cost. The engineering constraints on PV cost are minimal - all it needs is cleverer technologies, which we know can be developed. That is because the active part of PV is a very thin (low in resources) film with known ways to make it cheaply.
    • The problems with both PV and wind are outages, However reliable, there are weather conditions with low wind for days on end, and PV of course has limitations. So you need to factor in the cost of enough large-scale storage on top of the direct power costs. Or, you need to have alternative forms of power available to fill the gaps. That might be conventional nuclear.


    This filing in the gaps problem is why the value of a kWh is not a fixed thing. Also why resources like offshore wind and PV become less useful as you scale them up - because the high output times generate more power than you need.


    Which motivates the other (better IMHO) way to deal with these outage problems. Weather-related outages do not correlate across the world, so intercontinental power transmission is a way to get more constant supply from the same renewable resources and the expense only of the transmission lines.


    • HVDC technologies have developed enormously with new better semiconductors, and are now competitive for this

    I think the main blocks to this method are political - it requires a lot of international cooperation, and the power lines are vulnerable to attack.


    THH

    Quote from Calliban

    that information comes from the American Nuclear Society (ans.org). That is the world's preeminent source of information on nuclear power, and it is very strongly in favor of nuclear energy.

    What else do you expect from a nuclear mafia run institution? They had to ensure enough bomb material for the US army...

    Nuclear will restart with CF (LENR).

    Here is an example of a wind turbine tower that has actually remained standing for 200 years.

    Bidston Windmill - Wikipedia
    en.m.wikipedia.org


    It is a compressive structure. The bending moments induced by the wind are balanced by compression and gravity induced static friction. These towers were often made from stone or brick masonry. They do not suffer fatigue issues, because they do not rely on tensile stresses to counteract bending forces. They do not corrode, because masonry is already an oxide. If we could build onshore wind turbines like this, then the towers could indeed be made to last for generations. Maybe we should?


    There are other option using steel towers that would increase lifespan. They could increase the sectional thickness of tensile steel members in steel towers, thereby reducing tensile stresses. Towers could be reinforced by prestressed tensile cables that are periodically replaced. Engineering design is always a trade off that attempts to achieve the best balance between competing cost pressures.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.