 |
New Study Says Wind A Cheaper, Efficient Alternative To Nuclear |
7 Comments |
| By Michael d'Estries in Green Living, Wind Power | July 12, 2007 | ||
A report commissioned in the Netherlands and leaked to a Dutch newspaper confirms that wind power will quickly replace nuclear energy as the fossil fuel alternative of choice. The researchers concluded that not only will technological advances in the coming years make wind financially competitive but also security costs tied to nuclear energy will further add to the value. From the article,
“According to the report by the Energy Research Centre (ECN), the cost price of electricity production – around 6.6 euro-cents per kilowatt hour – is already comparable.
However nuclear power is more expensive if the additional costs of security against terrorist attacks is taken into account. Meanwhile technological advancement will make wind power increasingly cheaper in the coming years.
The report was commissioned by one of the social and economic council (SER), one of the government’s most important advisory bodies, which is currently looking into whether the Netherlands should expand its nuclear power production. It currently has just one plant located at Borssele.”
Very interesting. Obviously, wind power is dependent on geographic conditions to function properly — but as efficiency and technology increase, the idea of wind farms as safe and reliable alternative to nuclear power will start to make financial and social sense. Will this do anything to squash the debate over nuclear as the energy source of the future? Absolutely not. That industry is still pushing ahead with plans to increase safety, find solutions to waste disposal, and position itself to be a major player in the future energy needs of the world. Efficiency, safety, and especially cost will ultimately decide which industry will lead.
Loading ...
david bradish said,
Nice ending. The only complaint about the article is that it’s nuclear vs. wind. It shouldn’t be. It should be clean air vs. not clean air.
Both have their benefits. Nuclear can supply baseload power 24/7 which is what we’ll always need, and wind could help reduce fossil fuel use by generating whenever it can.
If you want to know how much we’re going to need from all sources to reduce emissions check out this post.
pdsharma said,
I feel it is an unfair comparison. Wind can not be bulk supplier of electricity. It has its localised benefits and is a good complement as a source of supply of electricity. With growing demand of power the world today needs judicious mix of all forms of electricity namely Hydel, Thermal, Nuclear, Solar, wind, Biomass within the framework of meeting requirements of mitigating Global Warming and Socio Economic needs.
Michael Stuart said,
Right on, David!
Last year, California discovered the hard way that wind power is not a competitor of nuclear power. During one of the worst heat waves in California history, electricity use was at record levels. Unfortunately, the wind wasn’t blowing and the actual output of the wind turbines was averaging less than 5% of rated capacity. California’s four nuclear reactors were operating at 100% capacity during this heat wave, however.
This isn’t much of a problem when it’s just a convenience issue. If Californians simply had to forego TV and lights, it would have been little more than a nuisance. But unfortunately, this heat wave produced record temperatures (over 100 degrees F) in areas where temperatures are usually much more moderate resulting in the loss of lives.
Any energy generated from wind should be used to offset the peaking power produced by fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil. And nuclear should be used to offset the other main baseload energy: coal.
Wind and nuclear aren’t competitors. They’re two players on the same team.
Eric McErlain said,
The study that Michael refers to is here.
Michael said,
We should be researching and building all available alternatives to fossil fuels, as well as electrifying our transportation system. Massive investment is needed to stave off peak oil and global warming. Unfortunately, no one solution is likely to save us.
Dezakin said,
The only place where wind is potentially cheaper in New Zealand where they get a majority of their power from dam fed hydropower and so have a huge surplus of dispatchable electricity. As long as you have a surplus of dispatchable electricity you can play this game, but otherwise you have to consider that wind operates as negative load and have to have backup plants for when the random supply doesnt meet the random demand… either hydroelectric dams, pumped storage, or natural gas peakers.
Nuclear power needs dispatch as well, but because it operates as baseload, it needs less than half of what wind power requires.
David Marcus said,
Wind can be dispatchable to be peaking, baseload, and more competitive with conventional power. Check out generalcompression.com