Vague_Boy Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 So wind power is expensive? (according to your earlier post) Why is that..the fuel is free,there's no decommission cost (or very little) and I'd have thought the turbines were cheap to install (comparatively) The lifespan of each turbine is relatively short. The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years. The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years. The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 The lifespan of each turbine is relatively short. LINK Amazing isn't it hat a windmill on a stick is more expensive to run than a multi billion pound nuclear power station... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Amazing isn't it hat a windmill on a stick is more expensive to run than a multi billion pound nuclear power station... You need hundreds of wind turbines plus backup to replace one nuclear power station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 You need hundreds of wind turbines plus backup to replace one nuclear power station. I know that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I know that...... My bad. . ---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 17:23 ---------- One thing which may not be obvious is that the fuel costs for nuclear are very small. The costs are dominated by construction and operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 we could go 100% nuclear. Do we actually want to cut CO2 production by 80%? . I wouldn't mind, personally. There's two aspects that need addressing; environmental and cost. The environmental aspect of nuclear is awesome until it's chernobyl time... the cost aspect is great until its edf time.. There's some other points beside energy that also need addressing that have an impact, things like; ground source heat pumps, better than 'good' insulation, lower power devices etc Overall things are going in the right direction, just slowly. Iceland should get building that hvdc line that'd help out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 This is just in.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392 Another reason to have a big mix of alternative power generation ASP. No one seems to want to comment on the way that Germany seems to be handling its power. They will be phasing out their 17 Nuclear plants by 2022 just before the above one is due on-line. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear-power-germany-renewable-energy Will Germany succeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 This is just in.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392 Another reason to have a big mix of alternative power generation ASP. No one seems to want to comment on the way that Germany seems to be handling its power. They will be phasing out their 17 Nuclear plants by 2022 just before the above one is due on-line. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear-power-germany-renewable-energy Will Germany succeed? Germany is substituting its nuclear primarily with coal. I thought you wanted to save the polar bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Germany is substituting its nuclear primarily with coal. I thought you wanted to save the polar bears. At the moment it is but its already producing 20% of its power by renewable and by 2050 it has predicted that 80% of its power will come from renewable energy. Never mentioned anything about Polar Bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 At the moment it is but its already producing 20% of its power by renewable and by 2050 it has predicted that 80% of its power will come from renewable energy. Never mentioned anything about Polar Bears. They've signed up to an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 and they're scared of nuclear. So I'm not surprised that their official policy is 80% renewables. Their electricity currently costs 32 US cents/kWh, where as ours costs costs 20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison How much are they spending on backup for their renewables? That'll be where most of the extra money is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now