Nuclear News Thread

Into the Night said:
He's ignoring the cost per watt of installation as well. Yes....installation. Those solar panels are EXPENSIVE! If you add battery ballasting...even MORE EXPENSIVE!

Coal, natural gas, and even nuclear power is MUCH cheaper, watt for watt.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant compared to the gross inefficiency of solar generation. Over 20 years, solar at 20% capacity means you have a plant sitting 80% of the time not making a fucking penny in production. Who the hell would build a factory of any sort that only produces a product 20% of the time? Even if the factory were FREE it would be a losing proposition. Nobody would do it unless retarded morons in government handed the company huge piles of money to make up for how inefficient the factory was.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wind farms have no great impact on farmland.....
45861_square.jpg
Click to expand...

You show you do not know what a wind farm is. Each wind turbine makes a quarter of an acre of land unusable


 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's irrelevant compared to the gross inefficiency of solar generation. Over 20 years, solar at 20% capacity means you have a plant sitting 80% of the time not making a fucking penny in production. Who the hell would build a factory of any sort that only produces a product 20% of the time? Even if the factory were FREE it would be a losing proposition. Nobody would do it unless retarded morons in government handed the company huge piles of money to make up for how inefficient the factory was.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean.
 
ptif219 said:
You show you do not know what a wind farm is. Each wind turbine makes a quarter of an acre of land unusable
Click to expand...

I'm grew up in Iowa.......I've seen lots of wind farms........I also grew up on a farm and know how insignificant a quarter acre is, particularly since they only place four on a quarter section of land (160 acres).......

I've actually driven past the windfarm in your video.......it's the route I took last year on our trip from West Michigan to Nashville.......

I also know the utilitiy companies pay huge amounts to farmers for the use of that land......often the annual rent for that acre of land (four towers) equals the profits from farming the other 159 acres........
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it won't. The reason is that wind and solar are unreliable, having capacity factors that range from about 20 to 60%. For solar it's about 20 to 35%. That means you need some other means of generation or massive amounts of storage capacity with excess generation capacity to fill it in order for wind or solar to work.

That in turn means duplication of generation capacity and raised costs. You just aren't looking at the entire picture here.
Click to expand...

I am looking at the entire picture. You are the one that isn't.
if it costs 5 cents per kwh to produce electricity with an existing gas plant and costs 3 cents per kwh to install wind turbines then which is cheaper?
1.) Run the gas plant 24 hours per day or
2.) Install and use the wind turbines 16 hours a day and run the gas plant for 8 hours?
I know which one I would choose because I can do the math. Can you?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's irrelevant compared to the gross inefficiency of solar generation. Over 20 years, solar at 20% capacity means you have a plant sitting 80% of the time not making a fucking penny in production. Who the hell would build a factory of any sort that only produces a product 20% of the time? Even if the factory were FREE it would be a losing proposition. Nobody would do it unless retarded morons in government handed the company huge piles of money to make up for how inefficient the factory was.
Click to expand...

It's almost like you think everyone but you is an idiot that can't figure out the difference between actual production and rated production.

Lots of factories have machines that produce a product 20% of the time. It is a question of ROI. If the 20% work product pays for the machine then it is a reason to have it.
Do you really think a table saw in a small cabinet shop runs even 20% of the time that it sits there? How about the in line boring machine? Do you use your power drill 8 hours a day? If not, then why do you have it?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I am looking at the entire picture. You are the one that isn't.
if it costs 5 cents per kwh to produce electricity with an existing gas plant and costs 3 cents per kwh to install wind turbines then which is cheaper?
1.) Run the gas plant 24 hours per day or
2.) Install and use the wind turbines 16 hours a day and run the gas plant for 8 hours?
I know which one I would choose because I can do the math. Can you?
Click to expand...

You are looking at it wrong.

Which is cheaper?

Building a $2 billion dollar natural gas generating plant with a 90% capacity rating that runs 24/7

or

Building a $2 billion dollar wind farm that runs intermittently with a capacity factor of 50% and building a $2 billion dollar natural gas plant in addition to it that runs when the wind isn't blowing?

The problem you overlook is wind and solar cannot be relied on to operate at a steady rate, and sometimes not at all, so you need to back them up with sufficient capacity that is reliable when they aren't producing. This then leads to a second problem: The cost of operating the back up plant(s) goes up because it isn't normally generating but still has to have operators present, may have to sit idle but running some or all of the time, and you still have to pay for the cost of building and maintaining it.

So, the overall cost of electricity goes UP because of this duplication of production that sits idle much of the time. The result is that you end up with electricity costing 3 to 4 times more than if you just built reliable means of production like nuclear and natural gas.

Thus, the answer is 1. Run the natural gas plant 24/7 and don't bother to build, operate, maintain, or anything else the wind farm. You save money over the life cycle of the plant even if the cost of generation is slightly higher since you didn't build TWO power plants that run half the time or whatever.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You are looking at it wrong.

Which is cheaper?

Building a $2 billion dollar natural gas generating plant with a 90% capacity rating that runs 24/7

or

Building a $2 billion dollar wind farm that runs intermittently with a capacity factor of 50% and building a $2 billion dollar natural gas plant in addition to it that runs when the wind isn't blowing?

The problem you overlook is wind and solar cannot be relied on to operate at a steady rate, and sometimes not at all, so you need to back them up with sufficient capacity that is reliable when they aren't producing. This then leads to a second problem: The cost of operating the back up plant(s) goes up because it isn't normally generating but still has to have operators present, may have to sit idle but running some or all of the time, and you still have to pay for the cost of building and maintaining it.

So, the overall cost of electricity goes UP because of this duplication of production that sits idle much of the time. The result is that you end up with electricity costing 3 to 4 times more than if you just built reliable means of production like nuclear and natural gas.

Thus, the answer is 1. Run the natural gas plant 24/7 and don't bother to build, operate, maintain, or anything else the wind farm. You save money over the life cycle of the plant even if the cost of generation is slightly higher since you didn't build TWO power plants that run half the time or whatever.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.. And you clearly can't do a simple ROI calculation.

If you build only a gas plant and it costs you $2 billion and another $30 billion in fuel costs over 20 years you have spent $32 billion.
If you build a gas plant for $2 billion and spend $15 billion on fuel and also build a wind farm for $2 billion and spend $0 on fuel you will have spent $19 billion over 20 years.

In which scenario is the the electricity cheaper over the 20 year span?


The wind farm makes sense when the cost of building it is less than the fuel costs to run the gas plant over the lifetime of the wind farm. There are many other costs that need to be included such as transmission and maintenance but the current prices of wind and solar are such that they are cheaper to build than the cost of running existing plants full time.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.. And you clearly can't do a simple ROI calculation.

If you build only a gas plant and it costs you $2 billion and another $30 billion in fuel costs over 20 years you have spent $32 billion.
If you build a gas plant for $2 billion and spend $15 billion on fuel and also build a wind farm for $2 billion and spend $0 on fuel you will have spent $19 billion over 20 years.

In which scenario is the the electricity cheaper over the 20 year span?


The wind farm makes sense when the cost of building it is less than the fuel costs to run the gas plant over the lifetime of the wind farm. There are many other costs that need to be included such as transmission and maintenance but the current prices of wind and solar are such that they are cheaper to build than the cost of running existing plants full time.
Click to expand...

Except natural gas doesn't cost that much. The levelized cost of a megawatt of power from a natural gas plant is about $50. The cost of wind generation for a megawatt is about $45

https://www.nrdc.org/cost-building-power-plants-your-state

Thus, a natural gas plant has to generate 400 million Megawatts of electricity before it begins to cost more than wind assuming a $2 billion initial investment in the plant. Wind isn't cheaper because of the duplication of generation means and the small difference in operating costs.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Except natural gas doesn't cost that much. The levelized cost of a megawatt of power from a natural gas plant is about $50. The cost of wind generation for a megawatt is about $45

https://www.nrdc.org/cost-building-power-plants-your-state

Thus, a natural gas plant has to generate 400 million Megawatts of electricity before it begins to cost more than wind assuming a $2 billion initial investment in the plant. Wind isn't cheaper because of the duplication of generation means and the small difference in operating costs.
Click to expand...

YOu do realize it isn't 2017, right?

This is from 2021 before the price of gas went up.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/...st-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

You keep making the same claim and failing to see that it is not always true.
My scenario simply shows that at some point the cost of wind and solar is such that it is cheaper to have both production types and only use gas when needed. We have achieved that already in some areas since new wind and solar is cheaper than existing plants. See table 2 in my link.

The 2021 analysis shows wind to be at $28 per megawatt when not subsidized and $9 per megawatt when subsidized. When it costs $29 to run an existing gas plant and only $9 to build new wind generation, it quickly becomes apparent that the best use of resources to provide cheap electricity is to have wind with a gas backup.

Here is the EIA projections for plants coming into operation in 2027. In some cases it wouldn't be economically feasible to build wind or solar when it is more expensive than gas plants but that varies by location. Your argument that it always is more costly to build 2 types of generation is nonsense and anyone with a modicum of business sense would not accept your argument when the numbers show the opposite.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Just as an example, EIA is predicting that the cost for fuel for a combined cycle plant in 2040 will be $29.43 and the cost to install solar will be $27.40. (Table B1a) That is based on actual production for solar, not the rating on the panels.
 
The moon should be declared International Territory and any lunar activities should be agreed by democratic processes at the UN.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
YOu do realize it isn't 2017, right?

This is from 2021 before the price of gas went up.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/...st-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

You keep making the same claim and failing to see that it is not always true.
My scenario simply shows that at some point the cost of wind and solar is such that it is cheaper to have both production types and only use gas when needed. We have achieved that already in some areas since new wind and solar is cheaper than existing plants. See table 2 in my link.

The 2021 analysis shows wind to be at $28 per megawatt when not subsidized and $9 per megawatt when subsidized. When it costs $29 to run an existing gas plant and only $9 to build new wind generation, it quickly becomes apparent that the best use of resources to provide cheap electricity is to have wind with a gas backup.

Here is the EIA projections for plants coming into operation in 2027. In some cases it wouldn't be economically feasible to build wind or solar when it is more expensive than gas plants but that varies by location. Your argument that it always is more costly to build 2 types of generation is nonsense and anyone with a modicum of business sense would not accept your argument when the numbers show the opposite.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Just as an example, EIA is predicting that the cost for fuel for a combined cycle plant in 2040 will be $29.43 and the cost to install solar will be $27.40. (Table B1a) That is based on actual production for solar, not the rating on the panels.
Click to expand...

Rule of thumb. Absolutely nothing from Poor Dick climate wise, can be trusted, that's just a cast iron rule.

The Completely Fraudulent "Levelized Cost Of Electricity

You can see right there that here in 2022 power from natural gas is at least three times as expensive as power from solar PV cells. But the title of the chart gives away that the metric for comparison is LCOE.

Look around for others making cost comparisons of ways to produce electricity, and you will find more and more of same. From Bloomberg, June 30, 2022, “Renewable Power Costs Rise, Just Not as Much as Fossil Fuels”:

The costs for renewable plants plunged for a decade as production of solar and wind equipment surged and technologies improved, but the supply-chain chaos triggered by the pandemic ended those steady declines last year, according to BNEF’s biannual survey of the levelized cost of energy. . . . New onshore wind now costs about $46 per megawatt-hour, while large-scale solar plants cost $45 per megawatt-hour. In comparison, new coal-fired plants cost $74 per MWh, while gas plants are $81 per MWh.

the LCOE metric assumes that wind and solar generators are essentially the same kind of thing as dispatchable fossil fuel-powered generation plants. Just build about the same amount of nameplate capacity, and everything will work out just fine. But in fact a predominantly wind/solar system requires vastly more infrastructure to make a fully-functioning reliable grid: some combination of a 4x or 5x overbuild of generators, vastly more transmission lines, and 20 or 30 days of battery storage. These elements could easily multiply the cost of electricity to the consumer by a factor of 5 or 10 or more. Nobody knows, because there is no functioning demonstration project from which reasonably precise costs can be extrapolated. And frankly, there never will be such a demonstration project, because the costs are so enormous that it can never be done. Meanwhile, everyone just nods along as if LCOE comparisons are meaningful.

Read more: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...tely-fraudulent-levelized-cost-of-electricity
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm grew up in Iowa.......I've seen lots of wind farms........I also grew up on a farm and know how insignificant a quarter acre is, particularly since they only place four on a quarter section of land (160 acres).......

I've actually driven past the windfarm in your video.......it's the route I took last year on our trip from West Michigan to Nashville.......

I also know the utilitiy companies pay huge amounts to farmers for the use of that land......often the annual rent for that acre of land (four towers) equals the profits from farming the other 159 acres........
Click to expand...

You show you do not understand that windmill farms means very little crops will be produced. The problem iws now everthing id solar paqnels that tyakes away thousands of acres of farm land in many states
 
Guille said:
I see you working jew.
Click to expand...

Yes, without my education, I could never do my current job. Beyond just the education, without at least a masters degree, I could not get bonded and insured. As I try to find replacements for me, I am required to only look at people with a masters degree or better.
 
Walt said:
Yes, without my education, I could never do my current job. Beyond just the education, without at least a masters degree, I could not get bonded and insured. As I try to find replacements for me, I am required to only look at people with a masters degree or better.
Click to expand...

I couldn't even highlight anything there. I see you working, and I can't wait to see you burn. Are you starting to understand that I'm not kidding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top