No, it’s the wind turbines that go into standby, for just that reason. The
grid pays the operators to stop their turbines during time of low usage.
Assuming that that EIA table is representative of real life, it looks like
offshore is pretty pricey, but does the nuclear capital cost include the
decommissioning? And where do we put the waste?
With regard to conventional generation, we are running out of the stuff to fuel
it, Chuck.
Yes, we need batteries.
Chris
> On 27 Apr 2016, at 12:52, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But what have you gained? The grid is still dependent on conventional power
> stations operating in inefficient standby mode to compensate for the wind and
> solar systems that can not and never will produce power on demand.
>
> Offshore wind has a capital cost about 50% greater than nuclear and
> operational and maintenance cost that is about double.
> <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
> <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm>> And that
> doesn't count the cost of the backup power stations which have to have equal
> power capacity and still have to operate about 2/3 of the time.
>
> Wind and solar would make more sense if there were such things as giant
> batteries but there are no such (affordable) things today nor on anyone's
> technology horizon.
> <http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-search-for-a-better-battery
> <http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-search-for-a-better-battery>>
> The lithium-ion battery was the last major breakthrough in battery
> technology and, apart from minor engineering improvements, there has been
> nothing new in 25 years.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|