3 ms·

50% capacity factor for nuclear power is an aberration: typical capacity factors are over 90% [1] [2]. By comparison, capacity factors between 20-35% for wind a

50% capacity factor for nuclear power is an aberration: typical capacity factors are over 90% [1] [2]. By comparison, capacity factors between 20-35% for wind and solar are the norm. Nuclear's capacity factor problems are also solve-able: France identified that irregular metallurgy caused faster corrosion, and this informs future builds. Nothing can make the wind blow more consistently, or make the sun stay in the sky for longer. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor 2. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab...

pasiaj 4y ago
In Finland wind power provides roughly 30% of the nominal power on average. The problem is that it fluctuates between 0-80%. The National Emergency Supply Agency calculates 6% of the nominal power capacity as the guaranteed capacity of wind. Unfortunately even that is overly optimistic. During days when temperatures hover close zero, wind farms are shut down due to the danger from ice debris. This has caused zero production days of wind power in Finland during the last month. Our electricity prices have been 30x the normal. List of causes includes: importing electricity from Russia has been halted, unreliability of wind power, delays in building new nuclear power, premature shutting down of certain carbon based energy production, increased exports to Estonia and Germany due to Nordstream/Russia/Ukraine, increased exports to Sweden due to maintenance of a nuclear plant there. )
Schroedingersat 4y ago
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... Nuclear is typically under 80% availability, with the three usual examples of "cheap fast" programs being even lower. The only exceptions of note are the US whose program is horrifically expensive -- and to get >90% requires some accounting tricks like spending big money on upgrading rated power without changing the nameplate and ignoring all the failed projects that were still paid for -- and China. The wind blows more consistently by having a higher hub height or putting it in a better place. Both are being done which is why, contrary to your claim, every year the capacity factor of new projects increases. > France identified that irregular metallurgy caused faster corrosion, and this informs future builds This is a great example of a factor leading to a negative learning rate just like the US experienced ever since their first large commercial plants began operating at the end of the 60s.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

pasiaj 4y ago

In Finland wind power provides roughly 30% of the nominal power on average. The problem is that it fluctuates between 0-80%. The National Emergency Supply Agency calculates 6% of the nominal power capacity as the guaranteed capacity of wind. Unfortunately even that is overly optimistic. During days when temperatures hover close zero, wind farms are shut down due to the danger from ice debris. This has caused zero production days of wind power in Finland during the last month. Our electricity prices have been 30x the normal. List of causes includes: importing electricity from Russia has been halted, unreliability of wind power, delays in building new nuclear power, premature shutting down of certain carbon based energy production, increased exports to Estonia and Germany due to Nordstream/Russia/Ukraine, increased exports to Sweden due to maintenance of a nuclear plant there. )

Schroedingersat 4y ago

https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... Nuclear is typically under 80% availability, with the three usual examples of "cheap fast" programs being even lower. The only exceptions of note are the US whose program is horrifically expensive -- and to get >90% requires some accounting tricks like spending big money on upgrading rated power without changing the nameplate and ignoring all the failed projects that were still paid for -- and China. The wind blows more consistently by having a higher hub height or putting it in a better place. Both are being done which is why, contrary to your claim, every year the capacity factor of new projects increases. > France identified that irregular metallurgy caused faster corrosion, and this informs future builds This is a great example of a factor leading to a negative learning rate just like the US experienced ever since their first large commercial plants began operating at the end of the 60s.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]