3 ms·

I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-

by Swizec 3y ago

I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Here’s a better number: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-tu... > At a 42% capacity factor (i.e., the average among recently built wind turbines in the United States, per the 2021 edition of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Land-Based Wind Market Report), that average turbine would generate over 843,000 kWh (843MWh) per month—enough for more than 940 average U.S. homes For comparison, an actual nuclear reactor in practical use produced 4,697,675 MWh in 2017. That’s the equivalent of 5572 of those wind turbines. That’s a lot of wind turbines. But if we can build 278 wind turbines per year and it takes 20 years to build a new reactor. They’re even. USA currently builds 3000 turbines per year. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-installed-us-each-year https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-install... So I think even with 42% capacity, wind is winning. We’d need to build 10 reactors per 20 years (1 every 2 years) for nuclear to beat wind.

russell_h 3y ago
It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too. It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.
- lysp 3y ago
  A study was undertaken for the Australian grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for... It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand). The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max). Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds).
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward Possibly, but nuclear TCO is also extremely well understood, and it's possible that the TCO for these new systems is not. I'd say the error bars are likely to be much longer on the renewables for the next 20 years or so, as we flush out the details.
robertlagrant 3y ago
Thanks for the more in-depth analysis. It's interesting. But my point - which I didn't really say clearly enough - is: you can't only compare MW, which is what a lot of these calculations tend to do, even if you scale provides for capacity. The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time makes it much, much more valuable than something that works intermittently.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time It doesn't; for instance, the nuclear reactors near where I live have to power down for a whole month once every year, for refueling and maintenance. That's around a 92% capacity factor.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    That is planned in advance, though. Wind turbines have additional maintenance downtime too.
- Swizec 3y ago
  Yes and nuclear is much more compact. Wind farms take up lots of space. It’s a shame we aren’t building more smaller reactors quicker. I think it would solve a lot of the problems that come from treating every plant as a unique one off megaproject.

by Swizec 3y ago

russell_h 3y ago

It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.

cesarb 3y ago
> It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too. It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.
lysp 3y ago
A study was undertaken for the Australian grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for... It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand). The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max). Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds).
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward Possibly, but nuclear TCO is also extremely well understood, and it's possible that the TCO for these new systems is not. I'd say the error bars are likely to be much longer on the renewables for the next 20 years or so, as we flush out the details.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Thanks for the more in-depth analysis. It's interesting. But my point - which I didn't really say clearly enough - is: you can't only compare MW, which is what a lot of these calculations tend to do, even if you scale provides for capacity. The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time makes it much, much more valuable than something that works intermittently.

cesarb 3y ago
> The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time It doesn't; for instance, the nuclear reactors near where I live have to power down for a whole month once every year, for refueling and maintenance. That's around a 92% capacity factor.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  That is planned in advance, though. Wind turbines have additional maintenance downtime too.
Swizec 3y ago
Yes and nuclear is much more compact. Wind farms take up lots of space. It’s a shame we aren’t building more smaller reactors quicker. I think it would solve a lot of the problems that come from treating every plant as a unique one off megaproject.