The US will install 1.8 GW of new PV and more than 3.3 GW of wind generating capacity this year

[jpak]

http://www.naturalnews.com/033750_solar_panels_USA.html

http://www.compositesworld.com/news/wind-installations-boom

How much new nuclear capacity???

:shrug:

:D

[FBaggins]

1. So what percentage of annual power production will solar be at year end?

We passed 1% a bit ago... how long until it's as high as 2% ?

[jpak]

2. What a stupid argument - can it ever be more than one per cent? - yes it can

so sorry

yup

[FBaggins]

3. Three more years at this blistering pace and they'll equal...

...a single reactor.

Wow.

[jpak]

4. where's your new nukes?

:D

[FBaggins]

5. Ga, SC, and TN.

Probably AL and maybe TX too... Perhaps you missed it?

[jpak]

6. No, I didn't miss them - I want to know how many will come on line this year?

:D

[FBaggins]

7. Because only a dramatically lowered bar allows you to cross?

I see your concern. What I don't see is why I should be swayed by it?

There hasn't been much nuclear construction in decades... yet solar - with all of it's herculean gains - still trails badly.

And now nuclear is picking up again.

Both gains are good news for those who care about replacing fossil fuels. For those who care only about renwables... it's a tough road to hoe.

[jpak]

8. solar and wind - faster better cheaper

yup

[kristopher]

9. What one wind turbine factory factory can accomplish...

What one wind turbine factory factory can accomplish...

In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.

A plant manufacturing wind turbines just upgraded their manufacturing process and can put out 2.5GWe of wind turbines per year.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/10/automation-speeds-up-turbine-production?cmpid=WindNL-Wednesday-October19-2011

At the end of ten years this single plant should be responsible for manufacturing about 25 GWe of wind turbines.

I estimated the total amount of electricity produced as the turbines come online over time and at the end of that 10 years, operating at 33% capacity, they would have provided a cumulative total of approximately 389.7 TWh.

I selected 10 years because this is the time it would take to build complete one nuclear plant project if it doesn't suffer delays - and they almost always do.

One nuclear plant actually produces about 7 TWh each year.

So devoting approximately the same resources to each technology gives us, at the end of 10 years:
- 10,000 wind turbines producing 72 TWhs of electricity per year plus the 54 years worth of production from the nuclear plant that the wind turbines have already cranked out.
or
- One nuclear plant that might be ready to begin to producing 7TWh per year.

Given the standard 20 year life span for the turbines and assuming the plant continued production of the same product, this factory will max out it's contribution to growth of wind power at 50GWe when it hits the 20 year mark and starts to build replacements for those wearing out.

That 50GW of turbines should actually produce approximately 144 TWh of electricity every year.

50GW faceplate capacity X .33 capacity factor = 16.5GW of production

That 16.5GW equals approximately twenty (20) 1GW nuclear reactors operating at the international average capacity factor of about 80%.

That's one factory making what is now a rather small 2.5MW wind turbine...

[FBaggins]

10. You keep repeating that nonsense. It doesn't get any more credible.

As if the only (or even the largest) costs are the price of the plant.

As you've no doubt noticed (by will also no doubt deny), there's a BIG difference between your comparable fantasy of what would happen in solar production in China... and the cold reality.

If someone decides to build a factory for small modular reactors. I'm sure that you'll provide the same analysis for how much power the plant should be credited with. ignoring land acquisition... materials costs... site development... permits (etc)... financing costs... and on and on and on.

And let's not even get started on how fast and loose you play with the numbers (crediting a wind capacity that only a handful of wind facilities have ever reached with the newest equipment while scoring nuclear capacity at an artificially low level). I'm sure nobody will notice... don't worry.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

11. Sorry Baggins...

In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.

[FBaggins]

12. No need to apologize

just start telling the truth.

Take little steps. That will make it easier.

What, for instance, would you call a man who took the peak capacity of an auto plant and claimed that that's how many cars they would build there over the next five years? And if the plant only made specific parts of the car and not even the entire car?

[kristopher]

13. I apologized because I know the truth hurts you.

In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.



In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.



In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.

[FBaggins]

14. You really wouldn't be in a position to know, now would you?

In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from this one wind turbine factory

Equals zero.

It isn't a turbine factory... let alone an installer.

[kristopher]

15. rofl. you've really gone around the bend...

Maybe people will believe you if you hold your breath and stomp your feet...

"Overall, Nordex has set up three lines for the main components — the nacelle, hub and drive train — and three further lines for pre-assembly. The company decided in favour of a rail system with friction wheel drive. For this the technology had to be adapted to the existing hall layout. The most suitable solution proved to be a skid system with an angular transfer unit designed to take heavy weights. For construction of the switch cabinets the skids are moved by a drag chain conveyor. In this way Nordex has converted the entire nacelle assembly to continuous flow."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/10/automation-speeds-up-turbine-production?cmpid=WindNL-Wednesday-October19-2011



So devoting approximately the same resources to each technology gives us, at the end of 10 years:
- 10,000 wind turbines producing 72 TWhs of electricity per year plus the 54 years worth of production from the nuclear plant that the wind turbines have already cranked out.
or
- One nuclear plant that might be ready to begin to producing 7TWh per year.

Given the standard 20 year life span for the turbines and assuming the plant continued production of the same product, this factory will max out it's contribution to growth of wind power at 50GWe when it hits the 20 year mark and starts to build replacements for those wearing out.

That 50GW of turbines should actually produce approximately 144 TWh of electricity every year.

50GW faceplate capacity X .33 capacity factor = 16.5GW of production

That 16.5GW equals approximately twenty (20) 1GW nuclear reactors operating at the international average capacity factor of about 80%.

That's one factory making what is now a rather small 2.5MW wind turbine...

[FBaggins]

16. You keep repeating that nonsense. It doesn't get any more credible

Of course... if you ever came to realize that we would lose half of your posts. Think of the advertising revenue that DU would lose from the decreased traffic?

This factory makes nacelles and switch boxes, not turbines. Nor does capacity equal production (or necessarily even close as China should have proven to you with your solar BS parallel to this claim). But you go merrily along crediting this one factory for 100% capacity utilization and magically completing (and installing) the rest of the unit... then you give them credit for a capacity factor that few wind turbines EVER see.

What's the average wind turbine onshore in Germany seeing for CF?

Don't worry. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a straight answer.

[PamW]

17. Actually....

Actually, there has been an increase in nuclear power over the years.

Although no new power plants have been brought online, we have been getting
more power out of the ones that are already online. With modifications and
new fuels, nuclear power plant operators have been able to amend their operating
licenses to raise their allowed operating power. In addition, capacity factors
and availability of the units have increased, thus more energy into the grid.

With the above improvements; the amount of "new" nuclear energy swamps the modest
increases in solar and wind.

PamW

[jpak]

19. How much will come on line this year?

:D

[kristopher]

18. That's year end 2011; by year end 2012 it's 4GW.

"In 2010, the US reached 887 megawatts (MW) in new PV panel installations. But that rate is expected to more than double by the end of 2011. Forecasts project that a whopping 1.8 GW in new PV panel installations will have taken place by the start of 2012 -- and by the end of 2012, that amount is expected to more than double again, topping four GW of new PV installations."

http://www.naturalnews.com/033750_solar_panels_USA.html


Personally I think it will be more.