Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It is unfortunate that the NRC and EPA continuously change the licensing requirements for nuclear plants.  They have made it impossible for any utility company to build and have licensed a nuclear powered electricity generating station.  TVA tried to keep up with with the ever changing requirements but finally succumbed to the reality that our government does not want nuclear power and covertly sabotages through regulation the construction of new plants.

So, where are we going to get our energy from?  Solar or wind?  The energy density in solar and wind energy can only make up for the fossil fuel and nuclear powered generating stations if we have incredibly massive solar or wind farms.  For example, the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant is capable of continuously producing approximately 2000 MW at maximum output.  Its total rating is for 3200 MW but has a capacity factor of 73.5%.  On the other hand, the Alta Wind Energy Center in California, the 2nd largest wind farm in the world with 600 operational turbines, covers 3,200 acres and has a Nameplate Capacity of 1500 MW and a capacity factor of 30%.  That means it only produces 500 MW of electricity. 

So 3200 acres and 600 turbines for 500 MW.  Now on to the simple math. To match Brown's Ferry, such a wind farm would need 2400 turbines and and 12,800 acres of land. 

 

 

OldSalt posted:

It is unfortunate that the NRC and EPA continuously change the licensing requirements for nuclear plants.  They have made it impossible for any utility company to build and have licensed a nuclear powered electricity generating station.  TVA tried to keep up with with the ever changing requirements but finally succumbed to the reality that our government does not want nuclear power and covertly sabotages through regulation the construction of new plants.

So, where are we going to get our energy from?  Solar or wind?  The energy density in solar and wind energy can only make up for the fossil fuel and nuclear powered generating stations if we have incredibly massive solar or wind farms.  For example, the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant is capable of continuously producing approximately 2000 MW at maximum output.  Its total rating is for 3200 MW but has a capacity factor of 73.5%.  On the other hand, the Alta Wind Energy Center in California, the 2nd largest wind farm in the world with 600 operational turbines, covers 3,200 acres and has a Nameplate Capacity of 1500 MW and a capacity factor of 30%.  That means it only produces 500 MW of electricity. 

So 3200 acres and 600 turbines for 500 MW.  Now on to the simple math. To match Brown's Ferry, such a wind farm would need 2400 turbines and and 12,800 acres of land. 

 

 

Wind farms or as they are also known -- eagle choppers.

People still wonder why obumer purchased billions of rounds

of ammunition. Replaced high ranking military that did not agree

to fight against their own American people. Let the country go to

hell. Dragging millions of cubans, south americans and ragheads

into this country with no chance of employment. And when the

banks are emptied, don't expect as much as 10 cents on the

dollar back, it ain't yours anymore.

 

 

Some Almost Forgotten History

In the 1970s, TVA embarked upon an overly-ambitious nuclear power program, against the advice of numerous knowledgeable outside (i.e. non-TVA) forecasters of future energy requirements. TVA's nuclear initiative was the brainchild of Aubrey (Red) Wagner, its board chairman and a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy if ever there was one. 

 

Under the Wagner reign, teams of public relations operatives toured the valley, promoting nuclear power that, according to them, would be so inexpensive to produce that it would not even be necessary to meter household use; customers could simply use as much as they wanted and pay a set amount per household.   

 

By the early 1980s it had become glaringly apparent that the energy demand projections of the outside ("academic") forecasters were correct and that it would be economic folly to proceed to build the 18 reactors in the flawed Wagner program. Thus the uncomfortable but necessary decision was made to "mothball" some reactors already under construction and to cancel others entirely.  By that time, Wagner was no longer the emperor of TVA and saner heads had been appointed to the Board, including a new and very sharp chairman, S. David Freeman, former director of the Ford Foundation's energy project and a man willing to confront reality.

The Wagner nuclear debacle is largely responsible for TVA's multi-billion dollar indebtedness.  It also is responsible for a considerable part of what you now pay your local TVA-served utility for your electricity use. The operational nuclear plants in the TVA power system are functioning reasonably well and without them the TVA service area would fall short of the electrical power it needs.  It is those numerous mothballed and cancelled plants that have rung up the debt and one man is to blame for this folly--Aubrey (Red) Wagner.

OldSalt posted:

It is unfortunate that the NRC and EPA continuously change the licensing requirements for nuclear plants.  They have made it impossible for any utility company to build and have licensed a nuclear powered electricity generating station.  TVA tried to keep up with with the ever changing requirements but finally succumbed to the reality that our government does not want nuclear power and covertly sabotages through regulation the construction of new plants.

So, where are we going to get our energy from?  Solar or wind?  The energy density in solar and wind energy can only make up for the fossil fuel and nuclear powered generating stations if we have incredibly massive solar or wind farms.  For example, the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant is capable of continuously producing approximately 2000 MW at maximum output.  Its total rating is for 3200 MW but has a capacity factor of 73.5%.  On the other hand, the Alta Wind Energy Center in California, the 2nd largest wind farm in the world with 600 operational turbines, covers 3,200 acres and has a Nameplate Capacity of 1500 MW and a capacity factor of 30%.  That means it only produces 500 MW of electricity. 

So 3200 acres and 600 turbines for 500 MW.  Now on to the simple math. To match Brown's Ferry, such a wind farm would need 2400 turbines and and 12,800 acres of land. 

 

 

Brown's Ferry's output is quite a bit more than 2000 GW.  It's actually around 3400 MW all day long.  U3 will be uprated 400 MW thermal after the spring outage, so that the output will be even more come April. 

You can't make a 1:1 comparison between nuke and wind/solar.  It takes 4 times the wind and 6 times the solar to equal 1 MW of nuclear energy.  Max output is irrelevent, you must consider how many megawatts can be generated in a 24 hour period.  Nuke is constant 100% output while wind/solar is intermittent.  Multiply your numbers above by my stated multipliers to discover the true cost of green energy.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:
OldSalt posted:

It is unfortunate that the NRC and EPA continuously change the licensing requirements for nuclear plants.  They have made it impossible for any utility company to build and have licensed a nuclear powered electricity generating station.  TVA tried to keep up with with the ever changing requirements but finally succumbed to the reality that our government does not want nuclear power and covertly sabotages through regulation the construction of new plants.

So, where are we going to get our energy from?  Solar or wind?  The energy density in solar and wind energy can only make up for the fossil fuel and nuclear powered generating stations if we have incredibly massive solar or wind farms.  For example, the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant is capable of continuously producing approximately 2000 MW at maximum output.  Its total rating is for 3200 MW but has a capacity factor of 73.5%.  On the other hand, the Alta Wind Energy Center in California, the 2nd largest wind farm in the world with 600 operational turbines, covers 3,200 acres and has a Nameplate Capacity of 1500 MW and a capacity factor of 30%.  That means it only produces 500 MW of electricity. 

So 3200 acres and 600 turbines for 500 MW.  Now on to the simple math. To match Brown's Ferry, such a wind farm would need 2400 turbines and and 12,800 acres of land. 

 

 

Brown's Ferry's output is quite a bit more than 2000 GW.  It's actually around 3400 MW all day long.  U3 will be uprated 400 MW thermal after the spring outage, so that the output will be even more come April. 

You can't make a 1:1 comparison between nuke and wind/solar.  It takes 4 times the wind and 6 times the solar to equal 1 MW of nuclear energy.  Max output is irrelevent, you must consider how many megawatts can be generated in a 24 hour period.  Nuke is constant 100% output while wind/solar is intermittent.  Multiply your numbers above by my stated multipliers to discover the true cost of green energy.

Actually, 1 MW of electricity produced by a wind farm = 1MW of electricity produced by a nuclear or coal plant.  1MW = 1 MW all day long (as long as the wind is just right.)

The comparison comes in with cost of production (As Dire did) and footprint and constancy of production (which I did). 

So, go do your own math if your numbers differ from what I posted.  If you want to add solar to the mix please do so. ��

OldSalt posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:
OldSalt posted:

It is unfortunate that the NRC and EPA continuously change the licensing requirements for nuclear plants.  They have made it impossible for any utility company to build and have licensed a nuclear powered electricity generating station.  TVA tried to keep up with with the ever changing requirements but finally succumbed to the reality that our government does not want nuclear power and covertly sabotages through regulation the construction of new plants.

So, where are we going to get our energy from?  Solar or wind?  The energy density in solar and wind energy can only make up for the fossil fuel and nuclear powered generating stations if we have incredibly massive solar or wind farms.  For example, the Brown's Ferry nuclear plant is capable of continuously producing approximately 2000 MW at maximum output.  Its total rating is for 3200 MW but has a capacity factor of 73.5%.  On the other hand, the Alta Wind Energy Center in California, the 2nd largest wind farm in the world with 600 operational turbines, covers 3,200 acres and has a Nameplate Capacity of 1500 MW and a capacity factor of 30%.  That means it only produces 500 MW of electricity. 

So 3200 acres and 600 turbines for 500 MW.  Now on to the simple math. To match Brown's Ferry, such a wind farm would need 2400 turbines and and 12,800 acres of land. 

 

 

Brown's Ferry's output is quite a bit more than 2000 GW.  It's actually around 3400 MW all day long.  U3 will be uprated 400 MW thermal after the spring outage, so that the output will be even more come April. 

You can't make a 1:1 comparison between nuke and wind/solar.  It takes 4 times the wind and 6 times the solar to equal 1 MW of nuclear energy.  Max output is irrelevent, you must consider how many megawatts can be generated in a 24 hour period.  Nuke is constant 100% output while wind/solar is intermittent.  Multiply your numbers above by my stated multipliers to discover the true cost of green energy.

Actually, 1 MW of electricity produced by a wind farm = 1MW of electricity produced by a nuclear or coal plant.  1MW = 1 MW all day long (as long as the wind is just right.)

The comparison comes in with cost of production (As Dire did) and footprint and constancy of production (which I did). 

So, go do your own math if your numbers differ from what I posted.  If you want to add solar to the mix please do so. ��

A 1 megawatt wind generator may or may not produce 24 MW/hours of electricity in a day.  You'll be lucky to get 8 MW/hours out of it.  A 1 megawatt nuke will output 24 MW/hours every day of the week.  What the generator is rated for is meaningless when there is not enough wind to turn it fast enough.  In this case, you'd need 3X the wind generators to produce the same amount of power in a day as a constant output nuke plant.  Cost of production goes up 3X, the footprint goes up 3X.

It's highly unlikely TVA will ever go to wind power as long as there is a majority of sane non-political directors. There just isn't enough wind:

The U.S. map shows the predicted mean annual wind speeds at 80-m height (at a spatial resolution of 2.5 km that is interpolated to a finer scale). Areas with annual average wind speeds around 6.5 m/s and greater at 80-m height are generally considered to have suitable wind resource for wind development.

http://windenergyfoundation.or...rk/wind-your-region/

With the current political landscape, the best choice in the TVA region is the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plant, at least until Nuclear Fusion comes along.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • blobid0
Last edited by Stanky

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×