Wind power: for or against the wind?

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by izentrop » 25/01/20, 14:15

On a forum worthy of the name, we bring arguments and underline the points which chagrin, we do not reject everything as a whole badly learned. : roll:
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 25/01/20, 14:23

izentrop wrote:On a forum worthy of the name, we bring arguments and underline the points which chagrin, we do not reject everything as a whole badly learned. : roll:


On a forum Worthy of the name, one does not write either "an economist who speaks true" as only comment, by implicitly accepting everything in block, before putting a link on a video (whereas it is obviously not an economist, but it is secondary).
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by izentrop » 25/01/20, 15:16

The wind at sea would be more regular and never zero? Well this is not at all what we see on German off-shore wind turbines!
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm? ... 19&month=6
0 x
Eric DUPONT
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 751
Registration: 13/10/07, 23:11
x 40

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Eric DUPONT » 25/01/20, 16:19

IN June there is more sun. the demonstration of our economist which is based on that of jancovici focuses on energy storage with STEP as the only solution while insisting, in the preamble, on the fact that there is a lot of charlatan in the field of ecology. ..of which he is himself a part. After he therefore recommends to predict that there will be blackouts and therefore that it is necessary to prepare for it, by reducing its energy needs. The usual speech of a nuclear pro in short. Add to a small multitude of small errors on the costs which at the end make a torrent and voila.En meantime he balances us a book of an EDF engineer, a source on for him, while affirming that he has no bias. The usual annery fabric.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 25/01/20, 16:42

izentrop wrote:The wind at sea would be more regular and never zero? Well this is not at all what we see on German off-shore wind turbines!


It is not this subject (the variability of wind or solar production) that made me react. On that everyone agrees and it is quantifiable.

On the other hand, his comparisons between the "over the night" replacement costs of a fleet with nuclear power on the one hand or renewable + storage on the other hand do not make sense (the € 250bn vs. €). I know it's Janco in the text, but once again he is a little smarter to play hats and "bamboozle" those who play in front of him.

Just because that's not how it is, nothing gets done "over the night" in this area.

You have an existing production park (say 120.000MW for France), aging over the years (like you or me!), A consumption that is changing (less and less quickly and sometimes down in Europe), the question this is what you are going to replace the production of 1000, 2000 or 3000MW which will close in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years. In no case to replace what exists overnight. The answers (and the costs) are not identical. Because there will remain 117.000MW existing (in the case of 3000), with their own characteristics, which will more or less stick with what is "new".
0 x
Eric DUPONT
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 751
Registration: 13/10/07, 23:11
x 40

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Eric DUPONT » 25/01/20, 17:11

yes that's right it takes the cost of 32 euro per MW for nuclear power while still specifying that the power station has to run at 100% and that therefore it costs a little more and therefore forgetting that the expected cost of future central hypothesis would be 65 euro (and again we are used to the fanciful details of EDF) to ultimately compare it to wind power at 50 euros while admitting that this cost decreases by 10/20% each year.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 25/01/20, 20:15

sicetaitsimple wrote:Because there will remain 117.000MW existing (in the case of 3000), with their own characteristics, which will more or less stick with what is "new".


Just two examples to illustrate what will certainly change:

- in about ten years and by then gradually, the existing WWTPs in France (about 5000MW) will "pump solar" in the middle of the day in summer and will restore at the end of the evening and / or the beginning of the morning. is not the case today, except the WE in some cases.
- electric vehicles should also go in the same direction, that of using electricity at "lower cost", in the middle of the day in summer, at "super-off-peak" hours (2h-6h) all year round , as well as the WE.

But it will be very progressive.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Exnihiloest » 26/01/20, 20:48

Eric Dupont wrote:yes that's right it takes the cost of 32 euro per MW for nuclear power while still specifying that the power station has to run at 100% and that therefore it costs a little more and therefore forgetting that the expected cost of future central hypothesis would be 65 euro (and again we are used to the fanciful details of EDF) to ultimately compare it to wind power at 50 euros while admitting that this cost decreases by 10/20% each year.

One wonders how American companies do their business with nuclear power. Surely they sell at a loss! : Lol:
But if we have seen something close in the USA because it is not profitable, it is the wind farms, not the nuclear power plants.
http://lepetitrapporteurdunet.unblog.fr ... s-aux-usa/

Image

"Wind turbines are abandoned, like ancient totems with a declining green religion. Imagine for a second if these abandoned facilities were petroleum or mining equipment, the Greens would demonstrate, to demand that the promoter remove them ..."
And I would add "nuclear equipment".

Lots of praise, pro-wind environmentalists, except to themselves. Hello tartuffes.
Last edited by Exnihiloest the 26 / 01 / 20, 20: 56, 1 edited once.
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by moinsdewatt » 26/01/20, 20:56

Exnihiloest wrote:
But if we have seen something close in the USA because it is not profitable, it is the wind farms, not the nuclear power plants.

But if, but if, US nuclear also closes.
In 2019:

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant shut down

AFP published on Sep 21, 2019

The last reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania was shut down definitively on Friday, signifying the end of operation of the site known to have been the scene of the most serious civil nuclear accident in the history of the United States.

The reactor 1 of the plant, which had been commissioned in September 1974, was shut down at noon local time (16:00 p.m. GMT), according to Exelon, owner of the plant.

During the next few weeks, plant personnel will empty the fuel from the reactor to store it in the pool intended for this purpose.

Next, the dismantling of the site, located on the banks of the Susquehanna River, about 150 km from Philadelphia and Baltimore, will begin, said Exelon.

If many residents wanted the reactor closed, several Pennsylvania elected officials tried, in vain, to put in place a rescue plan, in vain.
Although having a license allowing him to operate the reactor until 2034, Exelon decided to shut it down prematurely, because the site had been in deficit for many years.

In normal operation, Three Mile Island employed 675 people, of which around 300 will remain on the site during the first phase of dismantling, announced the nuclear operator. This number is expected to fall to 50 from 2022.

The dismantling of the main elements, notably the cooling towers, will not start until 2074, a century after the initial commissioning.

"At a time when society calls for more clean energy to respond to climate change, it is unfortunate that state law (of Pennsylvania) does not support the exploitation of this safe and reliable source of non-energy. -fossil, "said Bryan Hanson, vice president and head of nuclear for Exelon, quoted in a statement.

If reactor 1 has not experienced any major incident in almost half a century of operation, the second, Unit 2, has recorded the most serious accident in the history of American civil nuclear power.

On March 28, 1979, barely a year after it went into service, it had experienced a cooling problem, coupled with human error, which had caused the reactor to partially melt.

The incident did not claim any victims but required the evacuation of 140.000 people, led to the definitive closure of reactor 2 and relaunched the debate on the potential danger of civil nuclear power.

It had taken six years to restart the number one reactor of the plant, unaffected by the accident, despite opposition from part of the local population and a series of legal actions.



https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org ... ent-190921
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Exnihiloest » 26/01/20, 21:01

moinsdewatt wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:
But if we have seen something close in the USA because it is not profitable, it is the wind farms, not the nuclear power plants.

But if, but if, US nuclear also closes.


I never said it didn't close, I spoke of "closing in the USA because not profitable", and this is wind power, not nuclear power.
Of course it sometimes closes, for end-of-life equipment or if it is irretrievable after an accident or not profitable to repair, extremely rare cases.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 282 guests