81–90 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a 15% difference that much of a different story?
Look at your paycheck, and imagine the number is 15% lower. Should answer the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…
US nuclear averages below 0.9, individual plants can break 0.93 for a single year, but long term maintenance and refueling cycles lower the average. Ex: 95.73% (2017) 80.25% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Valley_Nuclear_Power_St... 94.43% (2017) 75.20% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Nuclear_Generating_S... 96.04% (2017) 78.07% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a 15% difference that much of a different story?
Look at your paycheck, and imagine the number is 15% lower. Should answer the question.
I'm not a nuclear fanboy (well, I wish I made sense since I like the idea of free energy, but renewables are just as good), but I think it's important to make accurate arguments.
This is nameplate capacity: the power a generator can deliver, full on, under ideal conditions. Solar and wind always look great when measured in nameplate capacity, which is why this is done. If you want to know how much electricity they will generate, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. Nuclear, for instance has a capacity factor of 0.9 in the US: it delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity in a given year.…
In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…
Electricity demand could be elastic too, but there's a limit to that. It's not always feasible to limit or shut down industrial processes for the few hours of expensive power. And home consumers are loath to not use their stoves when they want. There's potential in elastic demand though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why report on capacity instead of energy? Why would capacity matter at all?
Because energy generated is an after the fact number in any sort of power generation, and doesn't help with any sort of prediction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at your paycheck, and imagine the number is 15% lower. Should answer the question.
It does. And no, it's not that significant. I'm not a nuclear fanboy (well, I wish I made sense since I like the idea of free energy, but renewables are just as good), but I think it's important to make accurate arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? I'm guessing you'd run into space constraints pretty quickly. For one large project a nuclear reactor is incredibly compact compared to most alternatives except maybe hydro.
I don't think space is a concern in North America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…
Of course those capacity factors hide one important bit, the dispatchability. While the capacity factor is the same in this list for wind and hydro, the wind and solar generation are naturally capped by nature. When demand exceeds the natural availability of these, you need to dispatch some extra generation. Hydro and natural gas are well suited for this, coal can do it even if dirtily. Nuclear generation could be ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because energy generated is an after the fact number in any sort of power generation, and doesn't help with any sort of prediction.
Considering nameplate capacity without capacity factor would be bad a prediction?? If I need 1GW of extra energy getting 1GW of solar would be a bad bet. Same if I am calculating the pollution generated next year.
Kind of like 4D checkers or something.