Far from it. The most expensive is open cycle gas turbine, with coal
running close behind, followed by offshore wind, then nuclear.
We do know what to do with the waste: Store it until the radioactivity
drops to a level where it can be safely disposed of. Nuclear fuel rod
radioactivity has dropped to about one thousandth of its initial level
after 40 years in storage.
The most expensive option is solar, followed by offshore wind, then
onshore wind and then nuclear
CCGT and OCGT are similar in cost depending on the capacity factors.
High usage needs CCGT but OCGT is cheaper as backup and peaking plant
Hydro and coal are cheapest
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”
Indeed. I did my own calcs. Based in not what operators said their
numbers wre but bad on actual capital costs, lifetime, capacity factors
and need for backup, using same cost of capital for all and eliminating
government subsidy and carbon credits
Needless to say these were vastly different from what green leaning
bankers and renewable energy lobbies claimed
Its another area where we are subject to endless lies and propaganda -
just like climate change
And the EU. They all have the hallmarks of the same generaic trype of
organisatins behind them.
Juts get as many allegedly different 'expert' organisations to repeat
the same lie and idiots believe its true
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
With wind and solar do they also factor in the cost of the backup when
the wind doesn't shine and the sun doesn't blow? One could argue that
those facilities already exist but if the green lobby has their wish
alternative coal and gas will soon vanish.
No they dont.
Nor do they factor in the grid stabilisation needed - see last months
power cuts - nor yet the massive cables needed to absorb the full force
of a nice stiff gale in Scotland when the demand is darn sarf, that lie
idle when a high pressure zone lies over the mountains of bonnie Scotland
In addition, it's very easy to claim amortisation of capital over a 25
year period, for windmills when in fact they are useless after 12, and
capacity factors up around 40% when in fact they average out at 22%.
Those two factors alone will make levelised costs 4 times higher than
their 'models' suggest.
Likewise its very easy to use events like Fukushima to enforce a policy
of massive cleanup to a level utterly unneeded that must come out of a
privately funded insurance policy that alone will double the cost of
Should we be suing the renewable company for loss of power last month?
How many people could have died as a result?
More than at Fukushima for sure.
Nope the dice are well loaded.
Renewables can do no wrong and are given a free passage to trample on
regulationns whilst coal and nuclear are demonized.
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
On Monday, 16 September 2019 00:45:43 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote
"Wind turbines generate more cash when switched off and Scots customers sho
uldering £650m blame
According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, 2018 was a record year for co
nstraint payments, reaching a staggering £124,649,106 - surpassing the
total in 2017 of £108,247,860.
Of this, £115,716,335 was paid to Scottish wind farms, and nearly all
of that - £115,313,091 - went to onshore wind farms.
In 2018, several wind farms were switched off for around a quarter of the y
Bhlaraidh wind farm near Fort Augustus, Scottish Highlands - which has 32 t
urbines - was constrained for 29 per cent of 2018.
"Interestingly, because they're in a strong market position they make more
per unit than when they don't sell than what they would sell per unit to th
Well one of the issues here is that those doing the sums seem to treat them
as if they ware normal generators and not intermittent suppliers. I have no
issue with wind farms but their costs has to be calculated against their
real use times, and if it looks from past experience that building one in a
given place will need huge subsidies for when its not used then why build it
to start with. We simply do not learn from mistakes and as has been said
before the owners seem to not care as they make money either way.
I'm sure if we put our minds to it that we could build them to be able to
use winds both strong and gusty and weak and wobbly, but we for some reason
seem to have stagnated.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
Any EROEI is difficult to calculate. ISTM for solar panels you can get
whatever figure you want, depending on what information you put in,
such as latitude and expected lifetime. Certainly, for panels in North
Africa, California, South of France and other sunny climes with long
hours of sunshine, their EROEI will come out quite well and they make
sense, but in e.g. Northern Europe their EROEI is closer to break-even
or even negative, i.e. they're net energy consumers.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.