tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post4104704836448692172..comments2023-04-05T09:35:40.577-04:00Comments on Show Notes for "This Week In Nuclear" Podcast: Energy Bailout Showdown: Solar vs. Wind vs. NuclearJ Wheelerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01297139247058382607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-77368763010514444332009-10-31T12:54:34.464-04:002009-10-31T12:54:34.464-04:00Great graph! We talked about your graph and report...Great graph! We talked about your graph and reported your findings on the air on our Radio Show. Small Biz Talk Radio heard on KTKZ 1380 in Sacramento, Ca. We were talking about energy issues in California.Mark Montgomeryhttp://www.smallbiztalkradio.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-10469831997414613702009-06-07T03:07:12.371-04:002009-06-07T03:07:12.371-04:00Anon,
There is a lot of misleading and conflictin...Anon,<br /><br />There is a lot of misleading and conflicting information on the web regarding the life expectancy of solar PV systems. <br /><br />My figures are based on several sources including a briefing I attended by the Solar Energy Consortium and utility executives from Con Edison. I trust them because they are either in the business of making solar work, or in the business of evaluating suitability of various generating options. <br /><br />PV capacity degrades over time. By about the 20 year point the panels will have lost about 20% of their original capacity. Since in the best case PV only operates at about 20% capacity factor, a 20% reduction means they will only be producing at 16% of the original rated capacity. That drop will probably make them non-economic to continue to operate. Also, the inverters (a necessary part of the system) will not last longer than 20 years. The inverters typically have warranties of 10 years or less.J Wheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297139247058382607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-5910808217697087212009-05-27T15:58:59.454-04:002009-05-27T15:58:59.454-04:00Your solar numbers couldn't get much more off. Mos...Your solar numbers couldn't get much more off. Most Panels are warrantied for 80% power output at 25 years. Panels easily will push out 35+ years. Just based on how far your numbers are off here, allows me to consider you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to solar. But you saw it on the internet so it must be true. Research first. Nothing personal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-39343412249382224542009-01-30T08:06:00.000-05:002009-01-30T08:06:00.000-05:00Hi Adam,The purpose of the analysis was to demonst...Hi Adam,<BR/><BR/>The purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate the capital cost of new construction. I did not include the projected operating or maintenance costs for any of the three power sources. That is another analysis I have been gathering data for. <BR/><BR/>The interesting thing is this; nuclear fuel cost is virtually insignificant in the total cost analysis. The dominant non-capital cost for operating nuclear plants is PEOPLE, not fuel. The same may hold true for wind energy, although maintenance and replacement parts may turn out to be higher than the people cost. Also, from my initial data it appears that it will take about the same number of people to operate and maintain 1500MW of wind as it will a 1500MW nuclear plant. That is great for jobs, but it adds to the cost.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, we know that existing nuclear plants already have the lowest production costs (~1.6 cents per KW).<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned for the analysis of O&M costs in the future.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>JohnJ Wheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297139247058382607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-13967868999602518402009-01-27T12:34:00.000-05:002009-01-27T12:34:00.000-05:00John, The podcast is great and very informative.I'...John,<BR/><BR/> The podcast is great and very informative.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to know in more detail where the cost estimates came from. Does the $14 Billion for 2210 MW of rated capacity include the cost of fuel over 60 years as well as operating/personnel costs? Since it's a 2 unit plant at 14 billion, I'm assuming not.<BR/><BR/>If that is correct, can you tell me why those costs are not relevant?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-38310881815031747972009-01-20T21:28:00.000-05:002009-01-20T21:28:00.000-05:00Simon,That is a very good point about the rate of ...Simon,<BR/><BR/>That is a very good point about the rate of fossil fuel consumption while building alternate sources. Since new generation of any kind is capitol intensive, and since capitol is limited, selecting to build wind or solar instead of nuclear will result in more fossil fuels continuing to be burned.<BR/><BR/>Coal and gas are big winners when the government promotes wind and solar subsidies because neither wind nor solar can reduce consumption of coal or gas in any meaningful way for the foreseeable future.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your insightful comments,<BR/><BR/>JohnJ Wheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297139247058382607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19893353.post-57417761536579409872009-01-20T07:35:00.000-05:002009-01-20T07:35:00.000-05:00John,Very good analysis... Thanks for the work.Sin...John,<BR/><BR/>Very good analysis... Thanks for the work.<BR/><BR/>Since around 87% of the total energy use in our societies is from fossil fuels. <BR/><BR/>Since all work we do cost energy.<BR/><BR/>Since burning fossil fuel pollute and has an impact on nature and human life. <BR/><BR/>We can therefore say that using those billions to build wind power will pollute and consume 2.2x more than nuclear<BR/>(26153/10309)*87% by the way, you are very generous in your calculation of wind.<BR/><BR/>The same calculation on solar give 12.6x more pollution and consumption of fossil fuel than nuclear.<BR/><BR/>We also need to talk about the fact the fossil fuel reserves are depleting fast. If we build those low density power source that pollute more and consume more fossil fuel, we are going to deplete the reserves before we have the time and resources to build all the nuclear infrastructure needed to support the world growing energy and desalination needs for fresh water.Simon Filiatraulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16412350223094493858noreply@blogger.com