Peak coal

[SickBeast]

Here is another link for good measure.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The US should be able to tap more rivers for hydro power. They also have a great potential for wind power. 120 years is plenty of time, and I'm sure that wind alone could easily replace what is currently being generated by coal.

yea, it could as long as its windy ( around 25 to 30 mph) at every point in the country that there is a windmill... to much wind, it stops, to little, it stops. how many 300 foot tall windmills do you want in your backyard?

I am a big fan of wind, but thats just an uninformed statement. I even have my own windmill under dev. for my apartment.

Wind is cheaper than nuclear per watt generated.

Proof?

Well, Greenpeace says it is, plus:

Here is a link

Compare this to the financial costs of nuclear energy. To achieve a situation where 20% of current national electricity production was nuclear power would require the construction of at least five typical nuclear power plants, each with a capacity of around 1000-1500 MW (a typical reactor size).

Based on several recently commissioned third-generation reactors in Japan and South Korea, these reactors would cost between $1500 and $2000 per kilowatt to commission, and therefore between $11.25-$15 billion in total.

Clearly, nuclear power is more expensive. Once built, the plants require fuel rods, an additional cost, and these must be enriched at a separate facility, which would cost upwards of $500 million.

Nuclear power has higher operational and maintenance costs compared to wind power, and nuclear power stations take longer to commission (seven to 10 years) than wind turbines (three to six months once delivered). More carbon dioxide is emitted in the construction of a nuclear power plant, and in the enrichment of fuel rods, than in the construction of wind towers.

You need to realize that there is a ton of propaganda in opposition of wind power due to the nuclear lobby. Big companies like Enron are involved, along with the government. You realize it costs well over $10 billion to create a nuclear power plant, right?

You said per watt generated. This link says per watt commissioned.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

So the operating power costs go up 30% (an estimate for an unknown technology being discussed), that does't mean it takes 30% more coal. These plants produce far more power than they consume to operate.

ie... a dirty plant uses 10MW of power to make 100MW (arbitrary numbers), and a clean plant uses 13MW of power to make 100MW, it doesn't take 30% more coal to make up the 3MW difference.

No, that is not quite how it works. I haven't read the article the OP linked to but it is well known that a "clean coal" plant will be less efficient than a conventional plant (although 30% sound hight; I've heard numbers around 25%). The reason is simply that the sequestration uses quite a bit of energy so some of the "potential" energy in the coal is used to clean it. Note that I am refering to a certain amount of energy per TON of coal (i.e. it would take 3 MW to clean 10 MW, but 30 MW to clean 100 MW) not to inefficiences or the added complexity of the plant; ultimately it has to do with basic thermodynamics and the extra losses can't be designed away by simply building larger plants.

Hence, clean coal will always be more expensive than "dirty" coal.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The US should be able to tap more rivers for hydro power. They also have a great potential for wind power. 120 years is plenty of time, and I'm sure that wind alone could easily replace what is currently being generated by coal.

yea, it could as long as its windy ( around 25 to 30 mph) at every point in the country that there is a windmill... to much wind, it stops, to little, it stops. how many 300 foot tall windmills do you want in your backyard?

I am a big fan of wind, but thats just an uninformed statement. I even have my own windmill under dev. for my apartment.

Wind is cheaper than nuclear per watt generated.

Proof?

Well, Greenpeace says it is, plus:

Here is a link

Compare this to the financial costs of nuclear energy. To achieve a situation where 20% of current national electricity production was nuclear power would require the construction of at least five typical nuclear power plants, each with a capacity of around 1000-1500 MW (a typical reactor size).

Based on several recently commissioned third-generation reactors in Japan and South Korea, these reactors would cost between $1500 and $2000 per kilowatt to commission, and therefore between $11.25-$15 billion in total.

Clearly, nuclear power is more expensive. Once built, the plants require fuel rods, an additional cost, and these must be enriched at a separate facility, which would cost upwards of $500 million.

Nuclear power has higher operational and maintenance costs compared to wind power, and nuclear power stations take longer to commission (seven to 10 years) than wind turbines (three to six months once delivered). More carbon dioxide is emitted in the construction of a nuclear power plant, and in the enrichment of fuel rods, than in the construction of wind towers.

You need to realize that there is a ton of propaganda in opposition of wind power due to the nuclear lobby. Big companies like Enron are involved, along with the government. You realize it costs well over $10 billion to create a nuclear power plant, right?

The up front capital costs for nuclear are of course much higher than wind because of their respective technologies. Long term however nuclear is currently significantly cheaper per kWh produced and provides a fixed base power capacity which wind cannot.

Wind will have it's place but it isn't a feasible replacement for nuclear energy.