NRG says planned nuclear reactors are in doubt...

[RobinFinderson]

Are you implying that wind receives no subsidies?

Wind is also a very poor option. It's peak generation time is late evening and night, and very early morning which is quite opposite of current power needs. It's also very unreliable and therefore can't be used as base or peak power. It also generates very little power per acre.

Wind looks good to tree huggers and politicians and that's about it.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that current subsidies could be readjusted to make other options the 'capitalist's choice.'

Also, there are clean ways to store wind energy so it can be delivered at peak times -- flywheels.

[landpoke]

Here's an idea: Let's get rid of everybody's tax credits, subsidies, reduced royalties etc. and see what happens. I suspect coal, oil and nat gas would still come out at or near the top (with nuclear) as far as lower cost energy.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Are you implying that wind receives no subsidies?

That wind power requires extensive subsidies, as witnessed during the 2008 campaign. T. Boone Pickens and GE ran a massive campaign supporting wind power. Pickens wanted the government subsidies to back and/or bail out his own personal $1B investment in wind energy, and of course GE was building the beasts.

I addressed the problems with wind power above. It is a feasible on a large scale only if: 1) it has massive government subsidies; 2) environmental groups disregard the environmental impact of windmills on ridges, roads through forests to the sites, the loss of migratory birds/raptors, the massive footprint required to generate sufficient energy; and 3) the grid can allow rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing just right.

If the wind turbines can't keep up with the load, the three-phase current begins to lag behind and power operators are required to bring in additional supplies to compensate. The best way to do this currently would be using natural gas turbines, which can be brought from idled to fully operational within 30-60 minutes. Natural gas and coal boilers require many hours to come on line.

Wind requires 100% backup from traditional sources.

[Pheidippides]

Get rid of coal and natural gas subsidies, and wind looks like a pretty hot option.

No, it doesn't. Wind will never be anything more than a marginal peaker source.

[Pheidippides]

Price in cents to produce 1 kWh of electricity:

Coal - 5.4
Natural gas - 5.6
Wind - 6.0
Biomass - 8.5
Natural gas with carbon capture - 8.5
Advanced Nuclear - 8.8
Coal with carbon capture - 9.2
Solar - 19.3

We are capitalists and will continue to build the cheapest option.

I'll post more when I'm not having to do it on my phone.

Does that incorporate startup costs? If not, it is radically different than the figures I saw.

[RobinFinderson]

I addressed the problems with wind power above. It is a feasible on a large scale only if: 1) it has massive government subsidies; 2) environmental groups disregard the environmental impact of windmills on ridges, roads through forests to the sites, the loss of migratory birds/raptors, the massive footprint required to generate sufficient energy; and 3) the grid can allow rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing just right.

1. The government already offers massive subsidies to all kinds of energy. Accepting Eddie Jone's $/kwh stats, it isn't hard to imagine bringing down the price of wind to where it is cheaper than other forms of energy.

2. Environmental groups are all over the map when it comes to energy. Those groups who accept that our energy needs are not going to decrease have also accepted the environmental costs that you describe here. There are plenty of pro-nuclear environmentalists as well.

3. Flywheels. There are energy storage options that can prevent rolling blackouts.

[RobinFinderson]

No, it doesn't. Wind will never be anything more than a marginal peaker source.

Why? If we can solve the storage problem (flywheels), and we accept the new view of the countryside, then why not?

[Pheidippides]

Why? If we can solve the storage problem (flywheels), and we accept the new view of the countryside, then why not?

Why don't you let me know when we've solved that first one and then we can talk.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I have long been a pro-nuclear-hippie, for the simple reason that it is cleaner than fossil fuels, and really has the capacity to meet our current energy needs. But one thing I take away from the the Japanese disaster is this: If we continue to go nuclear, I think that the responsibility for the plants needs to be shouldered by We the People, and not some private interest. Public nuclear power.

The main reason for this is simple. If we are going to rely on something that has the potential to create a disaster far bigger than a private power company can fix, then WE should shoulder that risk, and WE should profit from shouldering that risk.

I say a nationally regulated, limited monopoly just might be a good idea. I just don't know how to incorporate that model into the free energy market. I also fear the loss of profit motive to drive efficiency and innovation.

From an engineering standpoint, nuclear is a very solid way to provide base load. If we are allowed to fully close the fuel cycle and recycle fuel rods, and bring more breeder reactors into the mix to burn old spent fuel into energy, then we will be fully able to call it "green energy". In many ways it is the greenest of all energies, and is the only one that is not dependent upon the sun.

We need other sources for peak load, and in some ways solar may be the most feasible alternative source.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that current subsidies could be readjusted to make other options the 'capitalist's choice.'

Also, there are clean ways to store wind energy so it can be delivered at peak times -- flywheels.

What you are mention is not Capitalism, is it Corporatism. True capitalism doesn't require the government to run interference for it. The term "too big to fail" is NOT capitalist in nature.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

~Benito Mussolini

[RobinFinderson]

Why don't you let me know when we've solved that first one and then we can talk.

I've solved it. Flywheels.

Edit: Put the flywheel in a vacuum on magnetic bearings and the thing stores energy VERY efficiently.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I've solved it. Flywheels.

Edit: Put the flywheel in a vacuum on magnetic bearings and the thing stores energy VERY efficiently.

From what I understand, flywheels simply smooth out short-term spikes and troughs in output. That certainly doesn't solve the much bigger problem with wind power: lack of on-demand energy production.

Wind power will always play a very minor role.

[Pheidippides]

I've solved it. Flywheels.

Edit: Put the flywheel in a vacuum on magnetic bearings and the thing stores energy VERY efficiently.

No, you haven't. See Jeff L below.

What you are asking for is the holy grail of electricity. Whoever finally gets it will be wealthy beyond imagination and there are many people working on it.

I havent even brought up wind data, coverage area, historical wind trends, financing issues, and a score of other things. You don't know what you are talking about, and you can choose to believe that from people in the industry or you can continue to think you've solved one of the great problems of my lifetime.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Why? If we can solve the storage problem (flywheels), and we accept the new view of the countryside, then why not?

I've solved it. Flywheels.

Edit: Put the flywheel in a vacuum on magnetic bearings and the thing stores energy VERY efficiently.

In this forum we live by the laws of thermodynamics. The flywheel in a vacuum is actually a great theory. But what is supplying the power for the vacuum? Remember you need to store 2,500,000 watts of energy (3350 hp) per turbine.

We would still require something on the order of 16,000 of the BIG wind turbines (2.5MW each) to supply our annual 40.5 billion kWh power requirements (roughly 13,500 kWh per capita).

We have a few hundred in the Columbia River Gorge, and quite honestly I think they are pretty cool. I definitely do not think we should abandon the technology, but we need to recognize and live within its limits.

At the highest possible end of the spectrum, wind power will be able to supply 20% (and still requires 20% excess capacity as a backup, because wind requires 100% backup).

[old_gregg]

I've solved it. Flywheels.

Edit: Put the flywheel in a vacuum on magnetic bearings and the thing stores energy VERY efficiently.

[RobinFinderson]

From what I understand, flywheels simply smooth out short-term spikes and troughs in output. That certainly doesn't solve the much bigger problem with wind power: lack of on-demand energy production.

Wind power will always play a very minor role.

For the part in bold, I'm not sure how you can know this.

We don't build wind farms where the wind doesn't blow. They are built in places where a LACK of wind is unusual. Also, if we can build turbines that are tall enough, they can catch wind up where it is always blowing.

Flywheels don't only smooth out short-term spikes and troughs. Modern flywheels are efficient energy storage devices that, if deployed on a grand scale, could meet peak needs even when the wind isn't blowing (note: the wind is always blowing if you get up high enough in the atmosphere).

Tall turbines, or tethered kite turbines + the massive deployment of flywheel storage bases... wind has long been understood to be the most viable of the renewables for a reason.