Delicious LiveJournal Links for 9-27-2010

[andrewducker]

• Indian actor thrown out of his home and disowned by his family for playing a gay man on-screen.
  (tags: india homophobia lgbt acting cinema)
• The complete Google Instant blacklist
  (tags: google censorship blacklist internet)
• Scientists identify faulty gene link to migraines
  (tags: genetics pain migraine)
• Stephen Fry to play Mycroft Holmes
  (tags: SherlockHolmes stephenfry)
• Abortion doesn't cause teen depression
  (tags: abortion depression)
• Milo's dead. And I killed him. - on Lionhead's rumoured cancellation of Milo and Kate.
  (tags: computer_games lionhead)
• Unions tell actors to avoid Hobbit films
  (tags: acting unions lotr thehobbit newzealand)
• New wind power in Thanet 13 times more expensive than nuclear power. Anyone got anything on this?
  (tags: power electricity government politics subsidies uk wind nuclear)

Comments

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

Isn't Booker a nutjob climate-change denialist? Anti-windfarm campaigners are deliriously knee-jerk and seem capable of making up absolutely anything to "prove" that wind farms ARE BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. The money he's quoting doesn't seem to make any sense, but my field just deals in whether or not wind farms kill all the birdied (they don't).

If I was at head office today I would go and do some asking about that article - I'll try and remember when I'm back on Friday

[andrewducker]

I'd appreciate that - I'd love to know whether he's just making figures up.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Can't comment on the validity of Booker's figures and the article does come across as a little sensationalist (the claim that green jobs will cost £22.8 trillion is just bollocks) and with a definite political slant, but it's not the first time I've seen someone question the actual productivity and cost-effectiveness of wind farms. Example. There are plenty more on the same theme in the related articles under the link.

The biggest problem though in the drive fro renewable energy is the massive difference in targets between the idea of 20% of energy from renewables and 20% of electricity from renewables. A difference that it seems even the EU failed to notice.

We all know how stats can say whatever you like so I'm taking a hefty pinch of salt with everyone's figures on this one, both pro- and anti-

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I was going to comment earlier (before work intruded, blasted morning shifts) that I thought the article slanted to make the worst possible case but, alas, it's not entirely unreasonable.

It's not that wind plants cost more than nuclear plants, it's that nuclear plants produce so much more power. Thanet's peak production is 300MW (and averages between 25-50% of that), but over here in Ontario the Bruce Nuclear Generating station's peak output is more than 20x that, or over 6GW. (Right now it's generating ~4GW, as two of its eight units are being refurbished.)

According to Wikipedia, Thanet covers 35km^2 and cost ~$1.5bn (CAD) to build whereas Bruce covers much less area (eyeball estimate is about 5km^2 all-told, as I can't quickly find a figure cited) and cost ~$15bn (CAD) including refurbishing costs.

-- Steve can't speak for operating and maintenance costs, but nukes will always pack more generating capacity into a smaller footprint because wind is a very diffuse energy source.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

Should the land/sea between the turbines really be counted? it isn't really affected negatively, and I know it's not the issue but in the case of offshore wind farms they've just created a massive no-take zone which will have a huge benefit to the local marine ecology.

[andrewducker]

So, 20 times the energy for 10 times the cost. Not great, but not nearly as bad as that article makes it sound.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

You can't just include the build cost though. You should include the full operating costs over the lifetime of the plant, including decommissioning. Decommissioning a nuclear plant is going to be a lot more expensive than decommissioning a wind turbine.

[skington.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that it takes so long to gain planning permission and build a nuclear plant that they won't save us from global warming. (Or rather, that nukes alone won't save us from global warming.)

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

20x the peak energy for 10x the cost. Neither plant runs at peak full time, though. The typical outputs are roughly 100MW for Thanet and 3GW for Bruce, for a 30x multiplier... taking that figure, then wind is 3x as costly per megawatt as nuclear.

Another factor to consider is that Bruce's power is throttlable, and can be ramped up or down to accomodate demand; Thanet cannot, it generates what it generates at the whim of the wind.

-- Steve thinks wind has a place in power generation, but not as a replacement for nuclear plants. Wind turbines makes sense as a supplement in geographically remote areas with reasonably-steady winds.

PS: Ironically, if we replace nukes with wind, we'll likely need a bunch more coal or natural gas plants to take up the slack in calm periods. I rule out additional hydroelectric sources as around here, at least, they're already tapped to capacity. And that's including the Niagara Falls plant... taking any more power from there would require "turning off" the Falls themselves.

[andrewducker]

See below for some more general pricing factoring in total lifetime costs.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

The 2010 PB Power report is interesting reading. They looked at the complete lifetime cost of various types of energy plant in the UK and attempted to work out the cost in pence per kWh of each type of energy generation. It's a PDF so I can't post the final chart, but I've copied a few of the results below. They are ranges due to various uncertanties. but seem to suggest nuclear power is far cheaper than offshore wind.

Nuclear Power 5.5 - 8.5 p/kWh
Onshore Wind 8 - 11 p/kWh
Biomass 6 - 12 p/kWh
CCGTs (Gas with CO2 capture) 6 - 13 p/kWh
Coal with CO2 capture 10 - 15.5 p/kWh
Offshore wind 15 - 21 p/kWh
Tidal power at 15.5 - 39 p/kWh


The US DoE completed a similar report in 2009. Their figures are different, but in both reports, offshore wind is reckoned to be far more expensive than nuclear.

[andrewducker]

Fascinating - that was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping someone would turn up. Thanks!

I wonder if solar will come down sufficiently to be competitive. It's the most expensive there, by a long shot.

[skington.livejournal.com]

Cringeley reckons that solar power will obey Moore's Law and become expontentially cheaper over the years, but I think he's confusing how much it costs to build the thing and how much energy it can actually get.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Solar by it's very nature will never be able to provide the bulk of our power needs because it cannot provide baseline power - the amount of power produced is variable. It might be useful for topping up the grid, but to generate the majority of power you need something controllable and stable, which essentially means coal or nuclear.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. I strongly suspect that it'll be nuclear, topped up with stuff like solar/wind.

I know that California is doing a good job using solar for some specific things - air conditioning, for instance, can run nicely off of solar, because you need it most when it's sunny outside.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

For starters, the BWEA Myths & Facts page is here, with references, but it's a bit old.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

> whether or not wind farms kill all the birdied (they don't).

That's nice to know. The nimbies back in Yorkshire were big on the poor poor birdies that the wind turbines would crunch.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

TBH they do kill, but in the same way birds tend to fly into things anyway. Cars, windows and cats kill a lot more - I was surveying a site for geese and after a year calculated a total of 12 geese would potentially be killed, as an utterly worse case scenario. One morning on that site I watched some men with guns shoot about 20 geese. *shrug*

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Re the Holmes sequel, Stephen Fry and Noomi Rapace. I can already hear the geekgasmic squeeing.

From me, for starters.

[andrewducker]

Oooh, that is cool. She was absolutely awesome as Lisbeth.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Oooh! Oooh!

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Quite a lot of it was coming from me. Wheeeeeee!!!!

Abortion...

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

"Abortion doesn't cause teenage depression. Religious fanatics waving pictures of dead babies do."

It's one of those areas where my modern feminism and anachronistic chivalry are in perfect accord.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Andy, have you seen this?

[andrewducker]

It's on my reading pile. Thanks to a recommendation from you, about a year ago :->

[meico.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that comparisons to the cost of nuclear power are almost always bollox because -to list only one reason- the calculated cost of nuclear almost never include the extraordinary cost of inevitable plant shutdown and cleanup...