5 ms·
3MW is the peak power when the wind is blowing constantly at the maximum speed the wind turbine was designed to operate (and not over, at which point the turbin
by joss82 8y ago
3MW is the peak power when the wind is blowing constantly at the maximum speed the wind turbine was designed to operate (and not over, at which point the turbine enters safe mode and stops to prevent damage).
Load factors for wind turbines are rarely over 40%. Nuclear's is 80%. So you'd need 2200 turbines to replace one Hinkley point. And all the gas power plants to make the energy when the wind is not blowing...
- lispm 8y agoGermany has 30000+ wind turbines.
- pytester 8y agohttps://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind... Quite right, my mistake. GE's new turbine has a 63% capacity apparently. So, 428 of them are needed, apparently. Either way, I don't see what is so intrinsically unrealistic about setting up 500 of these things offshore as compared to a hinkley point. Gansu Wind farm in China is 8,000MW - already 2.5x onen Hinkley.
- logifail 8y ago> Nuclear's is 80% Why is that? I'm sure we're all broadly in favour of free markets. Do electricity consumers buy nuclear because it's good value?[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
- joss82 8y agoBecause the nuclear reaction is not dependant on the wind blowing to produce energy. It's not 100% because you need to do maintenance at times.
- AntiTechTechie 8y agoI would think that they'd run it closer to 100% and do all the maintenance during a scheduled outage...at least that's how I understand they do the maintenance planning/scheduling at Palo Verde.
- logifail 8y ago> the nuclear reaction is not dependant on the wind blowing to produce energy Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I was alluding to the lively debate about how the selling price for electricity is set, and how it should vary depending on market conditions. I see no reason to lock-in minimum pricing for any kind of electricity generation many decades in advance. Why is that necessary for new nuclear plants? In other words: do we need to guarantee a minimum market price 30 years in advance in order to make it look like building a nuclear plant makes economic sense?
- nikdaheratik 8y agoYou seem to be leaving out the fact that most nuclear plants have a fair amount of downtime as well in order to refuel. While I don't have UK statistics, in the US it's typically 30-40 days per year when they don't run (so 10% of the time or more). So, you would need more than one source to make up for the nuclear plant's downtime just as you would to make up for areas offshore where the wind isn't blowing at top speed.