Sweden, China, India, Russia, and others are changing from occasional electricity from renewables to fossil-free electricity from nuclear that is continuous and uninterruptible.
Published Nov 24, 2023 at Heartland https://heartland.org/opinion/while-america-pursues-renewables-worldwide-expansion-is-underway-for-nuclear-generated-electricity/
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
American political leaders such as President Joe Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom continue “to dream the impossible dream” that intermittent electricity from wind and solar can run the world while countries such as Sweden, China, India, and Russia are changing from occasional electricity by renewables to electricity from nuclear that is continuous, uninterruptible, and fossil-free.
With regards to reliable electricity, Sweden has said their electricity policy goal is “changed from 100% renewable to 100% fossil-free”. The Swedish government unveiled a roadmap which envisages the construction of new nuclear generating capacity equivalent to at least two large-scale reactors by 2035. Sweden plans ‘massive’ expansion of new nuclear generated electricity by 2045.
The Swedish agreement also said necessary regulations should be developed to create the conditions for the construction and operation of small modular reactors (SMRs) to service smaller communities. In addition, the permitting process for nuclear power plants must be shortened.
Elsewhere, about 60 nuclear power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries, notably China, India, and Russia. Together, China and Russia account for 70 percent of new nuclear plants.
America continues its pursuit of reducing crude oil usage, in favor of wind and solar generated electricity. In addition, the “American renewables dream“ would mean sacrificing an estimated 6,000 useful products that rely on by-products manufactured from crude oil – products that range from asphalt for highways to fertilizers, cosmetics, synthetic rubber, medicines and medical devices, cleaning products, plastics, so many more.
Without fuels and without products now based on crude oil, we would be unable to operate the international and military airports that now accommodate a large number of the more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and a large number of the more than 50,000 military aircraft, as well as many of the more than50,000 merchant ships.
Without the fuels and products now based on oil, the world would see the elimination of all militaries and space programs as the world reverts to the pre-1800’s when civilization existed without oil!
The billions who live on this planet without the benefits of those products made from the petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil have provided are also the poorest, sickest, and most vulnerable humans on the planet.
For any electricity generation method, whether it’s coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind turbines, or solar panels, the most reliable are those that can generate continuous and uninterruptible electricity year-round to support hospitals, industry, militaries, electronics, and communications.
The nameplate rated capacity of renewables is very misleading as the generated electricity is intermittent and unreliable. Wind facilities only generate their stated output about 30-40 percent of the time. Solar units typically only kick in 25 percent of their purported “capacity factor.” That means backup electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear generating plants must be provided for the other 60-75 percent of the time that wind and solar are napping.
To the electrical engineer, the available wind and solar farms operational data shows that, it is not possible for wind and solar electricity to ever displace dispatchable, reliable generation of continuous uninterruptable electricity supplying the base load demand. In this regard, the proposal by some policymakers to replace major coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power stations with a fleet of nameplate rated wind and solar farms that are dormant most of the time is not technically achievable, thus “they dream the impossible dream”.
Further, the minerals and components of renewable electricity from wind and solar are typically garnered overseas in developing countries, chiefly in China, Africa, and Latin America. What this means is that it will be on the backs of poor Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics to provide the low-cost, cheap labor that will drive a “Green revolution” – to include any potential child and slave labor as well as extensive environmental degradation to “their” country, as discussed in detail in the Pulitzer Prize Nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy”.
As for the environmental credentials of “clean electricity”, governmental leaders need to look at the trail of environmental and human damage from the beginning to the end of the life of batteries, turbines, and solar panels. The cleanliness of “clean” electricity is one of the Big Lies of our time. Wind and solar electricity are not cheap or energy-efficient, after considering the energy required for mining, transporting, processing, construction, and disposal of the hardware at the end of the line.
Then we have the oxymoron situation, where policymakers are not yet cognizant that everything that “needs” electricity is made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, from the light bulb to the iPhone, defibrillator, etc., etc.! Thus, renewables are not displacing the need for crude oil.
Policymakers need to have a plan to be able to support the materialistic demands of the eight billion on this globe for all the products, infrastructures, and electricity that exist today that did not exist a few hundred years ago. Efforts to cease the use of crude oil, without a planned replacement, could be the greatest threat to civilization’s demands of the eight billion on this planet.
The so-called fossil fuel industry enables people to live lives of ease and comfort that were inconceivable for the masses before the 1800’s. The products and fuels manufactured from crude oil are the basis of modern life, providing thousands of products that are ubiquitous in modern society. These include items that we use practically every minute of the day from putting on our makeup and cleaning our teeth to undergoing medical treatment. Imagine the pharmaceutical industry without petrochemical products.
If we want to deliver continuous, uninterruptible, and emission-free electricity at scale, and at a low cost for millions of electricity consumers, to support the materialistic demands that did not exist a few short centuries ago, that pace will have to move to a warp speed timeline, like that in Sweden, China, India, and Russia with their focus on electricity from nuclear generation.
Ronald Stein, P.E.
Author | Columnist | Energy Literacy Consultant
https://expertfile.com/experts/ronald.stein
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem here of course, is that a mentality which is very fearful of normal, extreme weather events, and which confuses weather events with climate change, will very likely be fearful of any harmful effects of nuclear power.
It’ll be very difficult to persuade such people that nuclear power can be safe, just as it’s very difficult to persuade such people that CO2 is not a pollutant.
In the end, the silent majority and of course big business will force the issue over the vociferous minority.
Big business needs reliable low cost energy. Eventually the penny will drop, and they will demand ‘small reactors for our factories’.
Small reactor will never be low cost energy, and the silent majority is a shrinking minority by now.
I think actually its a rising minority. The situation in the UK is a bit short of what we have recently seen in Holland, but its very reminiscent of the period when the Brexit Referendum had been announced, but had not yet become a really active topic of discussion. Before Farage started to really agitate.
Agreed that small nuclear is probably not the answer. The answer is probably what China is doing: superheated coal and natural gas.
While the supercritical coal and CCGT are very good, clean options and probably the best for most situations, the small modular reactors have the POTENTIAL to be manufactured in a factory setting, in a controlled environment with staff in place. The reactor can be set up quicker and with less red-tape, and importantly less interest costs. It does give up the economy of scale to large reactors, like the 1.6GW units Korea builds so well. Also the small reactors are perfect for remote areas – no need for frequent delivery of fuel or pipeline infrastructure. The waste heat can supply a district heating system for a bonus benefit – I believe that’s the plan for the small thorium reactor that China is developing, but I could have it confused with their conventional small reactor.
There’s also a question of balance of payments. Better to build your own reactors in your country even if they are more expensive than to have billions of your currency flowing out of the country to buy fuel, if you don’t have any or enough.
I think in the end, having a good mix of energy sources is the best course, as relying on just a few tends to push up their cost.
Not according to the polls.
Maybe they’ll wake up when they see $1,000/month electric bills.
FJB is coming to Colorado today to meet with the governor and to visit the world’s largest wind turbine tower manufacturer in Pueblo. They are touting the green energy transition to clean and lower cost energy.
Meanwhile, the major electric utility company here, XCEL, is requesting a huge rate increase from the commission.
Lies to the north of me, lies to the south, and lies all around.
its schizophrenia
I’m constantly seeing and hearing people say “green energy” will be far cheaper!
I have figured out why Biden travels across the country on hours long flights for which his physical presence is meaningless.
In this instance it is an other opportunity for two 3 1/2 hour naps!
G’Day Scissor,
“…to visit the world’s largest wind turbine tower manufacturer in Pueblo.”
If “FJB” is visiting a “green related” company, and you have shares in that company, think about selling those shares before the company goes bankrupt.
Or no electricity bills because there will be no electricity?
The World Meteorological Organization has redefined “climate” as 30 years now instead of the thousand to millions of years “climate” used to be defined as. So now basically “climate” is just medium-term weather.
https://community.wmo.int/en/wmo-climatological-normals#:~:text=The%20most%20significant%20of%20these,1961%2D1990%2C%20and%20in%20the
30 years is better than the mean time between named hurricanes that is used by media authors….
It’s strange, isn’t it? Almost as if there is a death wish going on in some western democracies. I wonder if the U.S. media has ever asked the leading figures in both main political parties about nuclear power and if so what the answers were.
Here in the U.K. we have a similar puzzling situation. Mother Nature gave us a great gift of natural gas – we have something like 50 years of frackable gas beneath our feet. But politicians on BOTH sides of the political divide support a ban on fracking, so we are unable to benefit. Needless to say we still import fracked gas from other countries. Even if you speak really slowly to our members of Parliament they still don’t get it.
It is almost as if these politicians want us to fail as nations. But the reality is that they just aren’t very intelligent. I don’t know what the situation is in the States but a huge problem in the U.K. is that our right wing has over the last 50 years drifted to the left so we now have two left of centre parties dominating the political scene. So now, General Elections have largely lost their meaning because it doesn’t matter who you vote for you still end up with a socialist government.
I think our two nations may be done for.
And who might be paying them to make that happen?
Crazy isn’t it! It’s our Grandchildren I feel sad for, what life have they got in front of them? We’ve spoken to our “Con” MP about it and he fluffed, but at the end of the meeting he came over and said privately I totally agree with you. To me that makes it worse, he’s complicit in destroying people’s lives and knows it!
Every time I’ve talked to state politicians, in person, they always give me a big hand shake and have that ear to ear grin like they love me. Then they tell me how much they agree with everything I say and how hard they’ll work to implement my ideas. Then I never hear from them again.
Politicians are too political. You can’t do the “right thing” if always trying to please the camera, which doesn’t give a rat’s butt about real people or even what is really good for the environment or not.
The political scene in the UK is being driven by an unspoken power that has greater influence on our political class than the electorate has.
That is a very troubling development. It has occurred largely since the Blair period of influence was officially in play.
Today we have left of centre policies being driven on by all parties. It is under the guiding hand of… we are not told, but, what ever the voting public says or demands nothing changes. The same direction of travel is progressed. It is very odd?
“Even if you speak really slowly to our members of Parliament they still don’t get it.”
Time to speak louder and more aggressively, in a Churchillian way.
50 years – and then?
Cave dwelling again?
Its irrelevant. The problem is that wind and solar are not a solution to any problem. They are not a solution to global warming, if there is any. They are not a solution to running out of gas, if that is going to happen. They are not a viable way of generating power. The sooner we stop pretending they are the better.
Fracking is a sort of solution to part of the problem, it buys time to develop some viable new energy source. Which will not involve a power source that does what the UK 28GW installed parc of wind does: fluctuate between 0.5GW and 20+GW without notice at inconvenient times and just about vanish for days on end every winter (and summers too). Or what solar does, hibernate in November until spring, and even then only work from 9-3.
But the short answer to your question is what the Chinese are doing: superheated coal generation. There is fuel for that to last hundreds of years, and they are making the most of it. And what happens after that runs out? Well, that will be a hundred years and more to make fusion work. Should be within our capabilities if we can avoid nuking each other that long.
Those on the left have always hated the western democracies.
This short video of : life without petroleum, says it all
fantastic! I’d like to do one like that but “live without wood products”
I have a feeling that 85% of the article were posted here a only few weeks ago. But maybe I’ve read it elsewhere.
Maybe if you read it a few more time you will learn something real…
… instead of the alarmist claptrap you keep supporting, for some unknown reason.
Indoctrination by repetition?
That worked for a while with “Safe and effective”.
You should know.
More like practice makes perfect. Maybe this time you will figure it out.
Wind facilities only generate their stated output about 30-40 percent of the time. Solar units typically only kick in 25 percent of their purported “capacity factor.”
The problem is, even that is misleadingly optimistic. Because the times when they are generating those percentages often does not coincide with the times when there is demand. Anyone can see it here, as I keep posting:
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind.
So, in the UK, as I also keep saying, the classic is a cold dark calm winter evening in January or February. Its early evening peak demand. Its the electric millenium, the population has come home, plugged in their EV to recharge, turned up the heat pump, put the kettle on for a cup of tea and turned on the hob and maybe oven or grill. But this is a day when 150GW of faceplate that they have heroically managed to get installed only delivers 3GW for much of the day, in a week when it delivers under 10GW for a week or ten days, and in one of the years which occur every couple of decades when there is a season long and region wide wind drought. As explained by the Royal Society report, published in 2023, which no-one in power paid the slightest attention to.
Peak demand is now not 45GW as it used to be, but has risen to 90GW+, and the country is entirely dependent on wind. A policy endorsed by all political parties except Reform.
Out go the lights.
The UK Net Zero plan is a recipe for blackouts. Not just local ones either. Keep on with it to the bitter end and there will be several nationwide ones every winter, taking days to do a phased restart.
This is madness on a level with the cattle killing mania of the Xhosa in the 19C, also heavily promoted by a teenage girl prophet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse
“Because the times when they are generating those percentages often does not coincide with the times when there is demand.”
uh.. well.. then we’ll just have to store it in multi billion dollar fire prone industrial scale battery systems that nobody wants in their ‘hood
I’m now seeing such resistance to such battery systems here in Wokeachusetts.
Batteries that contain the energy of a nuclear bomb if they explode.
While they can burn, they can’t explode.
A nuclear explosion releases all the energy in a micro-second, while a fire will release it over several hours.
Another factor is that these numbers are day one numbers. As these units age, the capacity factor shrinks, in some cases, dramatically.
A nuclear scientist spoke to a French politician a few years ago about nuclear energy. The politician’s response was that insane Greens would start smashing car windows if he made a wrong move. It was Macron. This same scientist commented that while the media and Green movement had strong feelings against nuclear, there was none of this from engineers he had spoken to but that they were scared to openly support nuclear. Sadly these fringe lunatics have a disproportionate influence on governments and many politicians.
cowards!
OK, I’d probably be a coward in a combat zone- but not so when arguing about energy or any other political matter.
The problem is that the left wants to turn the country into a combat zone, with them attacking anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Those who are willing to use violence to get their way, will always have power far in excess of their actual numbers.
I suspect my following philosophical argument is going to get lots of negative votes.
We know that, throughout the history of Homo Sapiens, tribes and nations have competed with each other for land, resources and dominant power.
It used to be thought that humans were the only species who organized themselves into warrior-type tribes to compete for resources, until Jane Goodall observed a tribe of Chimpanzees trekking through the forest to invade and kill another tribe which was too close.
The following article provides some details, for those interested.
https://news.mongabay.com/2014/12/tribal-violence-comes-naturally-to-chimpanzees/
In other words, it seems we are wired to fight wars. All countries, as far as I know, have an army to protect themselves from invasion. One of the most peaceful nations, Bhutan, which measures its wealth in terms of a ‘happiness index’ instead of GDP, also has an army to defend itself.
So what has this to do with ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’, you might be thinking? Well, this is just an hypothesis, but it does make some sense. In order to change this wired-in, competitve nature for wars, we create a world-wide enemy that is attacking every nation.
The world-wide enemy is CO2 emissions. If we can devote our resources to fighting this enemy, we can perhaps avoid another world war.
Declaring the hand that feeds you i.e.CO2 as the enemy which to be defeated by collective efforts, is about as close to cult induced suicide as it gets.
The one certain thing that particular cult madness won’t prevent is war.
All war is madness. The point I’m making is that the madness of fighting the fictitious enemy of CO2 increases from human emissions, is far less destructive than an escalation of the real wars that are currently occurring in the Ukraine and Gaza.
If the world is united to fight against the potential catastrophe of human CO2 emissions, then there should be less incentive to fight the ‘real’ wars that destroy lives and property on a huge scale.
Vincent,
If you imagine the elimination of Co2 is less destructive than real wars fought with explosives and all other things that go with it, then i can only think you have not realised the total chaos and mass genocide removal of all CO2 producing processes will bring. Billions of people will die due to the climate alarmists anti CO2 proposals.
Doing something stupid, to avoid doing something else almost as stupid is just plain ….stupid!
“If you imagine the elimination of Co2 is less destructive than real wars fought with explosives and all other things that go with it, then i can only think you have not realised the total chaos and mass genocide removal of all CO2 producing processes will bring. Billions of people will die due to the climate alarmists anti CO2 proposals.”
Read my post. I wrote: “The point I’m making is that the madness of fighting the fictitious enemy of CO2 increases from human emissions, is far less destructive than an escalation of the real wars that are currently occurring in the Ukraine and Gaza.”
Not even ‘alarmists’ are advocating the elimination of CO2. Net zero is not the elimination of all CO2, but the elimination of the increase in CO2 due to human emissions. The ‘alarmist’ argument is that a stable climate requires a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. Their argument is that too much CO2 is bad for the climate, just as too much of a particular vitamin or mineral is bad for human health.
Of course, I don’t agree with that argument. If one is comparing CO2 levels to an essential vitamin or mineral for human health, then I think the best comparison would be with Vitamin C. Whilst a minimum quantity of around 35mg of Vitamin C per day is essential for good health, quanities up to 2,000mg per day can have increased benefits.
You need to read Rod’s post. He didn’t say elimination of all CO2 would bring disaster, he correctly pointed out that eliminating human CO2 production (ie net zero) would bring disaster.
There will always be people who believe that they can get what ever they want, by taking it from others. From their point of view, war is not madness.
“Oh look. An emu.”
“a tribe of Chimpanzees trekking through the forest to invade and kill another tribe which was too close”
it would be interesting to hear their discussion of the matter prior to attacking the neighboring tribe of chimps 🙂
Social media would improve the chimp’s situation. You can see how well it has prevented conflict in Ukraine and Gaza. /s
Bloomberg’s green-energy research team estimated it would cost $US200 Trillion to stop Global Warming by 2050.
There is only $US40 trillion in cash, checking, and savings in the world.
There are about 2 billion households in the world, so that is $US100,000 per household.
Ninety percent of the world’s households can’t afford anything additional so the households in developed nations will have to pay 10 times as much to cover it.
That means about $US 1 million per household in developed countries or about $US 37,000 per year for 27 years. The working people can’t afford anything near that, almost all would prefer to have a million in the bank and a degree or two of warming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg
They won’t take any more than everything you have, cuz that’s just the way it is. It’s part of the plan, although we aren’t entirely sure why the planners are so inclined. They started with “fire”, now moved on to “agriculture”, it’s hard to say what they will go after next for wealth distribution schemes.
“Bloomberg’s green-energy research team estimated it would cost $US200 Trillion to stop Global Warming by 2050.”
I’d say that Bloomberg’s estimate is way off. Since Global Warming is mostly natural, no amount of money will stop it. (wink)
However, if the world is united in its attempt to stop Global Warming, there could be less chance of even more expensive wars occurring.
It seems impossible to find any accurate estimation of the total cost of WW2, which includes the cost of all the buildings and infrastructure which were destroyed in numerous countries.
The estimates I find seem to include only the money used by various countries to fight the war, and the donations provided after the war, to rebuild. The full cost of the destruction all the homes, buildings, factories, hospitals, roads, bridges, and so, that were bombed in numerous cities in numerous countries, must be mind-boggling.
The following Wiki article provides some percentages of the total damage in dozens of cities and built-up areas, but only in Germany and Japan. When 80% of just one major city is destroyed, that’s an awful lot of money. When, on average, 50% of a hundred or more cities are destroyed, that’s a huge cost in today’s money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
Can’t work, because the damage claimed for CO2 is too far off in the future. That and most people aren’t buying into the scam.
It’s much more likely that we will continue to waste money on CO2 abatement, and continue to fight wars.
Given that renewables only produce electricity at rated capacity a limited amount of time (25% for solar panels was stated in the article), has there been any analysis of how much power a renewable resource must produce to replace itself along with it’s expected output during it’s lifetime. For example, If a solar panel lasts 20 years, but only produces 25% rated output, then it’s really operating only 5 years. If 20% of the panel’s lifetime output would be needed to build it’s replacement, then the net production for that panel is only 5% of the rated output. I’m using made up numbers here – has there been any analysis using actual output numbers?
The energy return time and harvest factor of PV plants vary with technology and plant
location. An analysis commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency has determined
EPBT for PV power plants for a plant operation in Germany (assumed average annual
irradiation sum at the module level of 1200 kWh/(m2-a)) of 1.6 years for multi- and 2.1
years for monocrystalline Si modules [UBA7]. With a lifetime of 25-30 years and an annual
yield degradation of 0.35 percent, this results in harvest factors of 11-18
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf
Germany claims 46% of gross electricity consumption is provided by ‘renewable’ sources (incl hydro).
Of this 46%, only 11% comes from solar.
After 40 years of chasing the renewable energy nirvana, Germany still has the hardest part of the quest to contend with.
They’ve already used up all the low hanging fruit wind, solar and hydro sites.
That 46% contribution will struggle to 50% in another 10 years.
Even the malleable Germans will get sick of Energiewiend by then.
1992: 3,7%
2002: 7,6%
2012: 23%
2022: 43%
In product development and marketing of software, it was critical for us to never assume that constant rates of sales & market penetration would persist.
Market potential saturation points can be reached relatively quickly, often even before a promising product has achieved break-even / payback point.
Instead of high-fives about how well our product was was doing, we were ever vigilant about reaching the precipice that pursuit of “low hanging fruit” presented.
Suddenly, the momentum disappeared, there were no more ready opportunities.
“Renewables” are already at this point in many countries.
Actually they are past that point for many countries. When government mandates and subsidies go away, so will most “renewable” energy sites.
Lets use the information provided by a solar industry salesman.
Good plan.
Just read an editorial on FOX regarding the CO2 pipeline planned across the US midsection. It rightly calls it a “boondoggle for the oil industry”.
“Carbon capture” is just another crony capitalist scheme.
Everything about unreliable “energy” are just a crony capitalist schemes.
It all siphons off “excess” money from the poorest of society, and you, MUN, are all for that. YOU love poverty, specifically “energy” poverty.
Please explain why.
You have a talent for packing more mis-information in tinier spaces than even CNN manages.
Lifespan of 25-30 years? Too big by a factor of almost two.
Degradation of 0.35%/yr? To small by close to half.
As to your harvest factor, you are only counting for the energy to make the die itself. You haven’t counted the energy needed to make the casing the die is put in, or the panel that the casings are put in, nor the frames that the panels are put in.
Nor have you accounted for the energy needed to clean and maintain those panels over their way to short lifespan.
Nor have you accounted for the energy needed to demolish and dispose of them when they have outlived their purpose.
Russia building more nuclear reactors than any other country, IAEA data show
MOSCOW, November 13, 2023
According to the IAEA, a total of 412 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with their total capacity at about 370.2 gigawatts
Russia is building more nuclear reactors that any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The data show a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia. A plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
Rosatom is doing the most construction of international nuclear power units.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion is about $6,250/kW, which includes financing by Egypt $5 billion and by Russia $25 billion
That cost is at least 40% less then US/UK/EU
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion is about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
It is interesting, Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
If we talk about the Americans and Europeans, they are lagging behind by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Remember, these nuclear plants, steady, reliable power, and have 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years, which compares with UNSTEADY, unreliable power from offshore wind at 0.45 CF, and lasting at most 25 years.
Floating Offshore Wind in Norway
Equinor, a Norwegian company, just put in operation 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens
Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 Norwegian oil rigs.
The existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, will provide the other 65%.
The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.
The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $750 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $750 million/88 MW = $8,523/kW.
That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher
The project is located only about 125 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites
The production cost likely will be about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies.
In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.
Workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, and get 6 weeks off, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine
If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs likely would be even higher, because of:
1) the additional cost of transport, of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
2) the additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for
storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to sites
Cabling to Shore and On Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to the New England high voltage grid.
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies, but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.
Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
Very good, plain straight forward language, sort and to the point. We need more like this.
The transition isn’t from one fuel to another, it is transition to a single energy source – electricity.
The preoccupation with how electricity will be generated, ignores (deliberately?) how the electricity will get from the power station to point of use, in an electricity only World.
It is akin to being preoccupied with manufacturing large number of locomotives and rolling stock without there being any railway infrastructure to run them on – nor any plans to build them.
Nuclear is not the answer in the U.S. because nuclear was the problem first. The groups demonizing CO2 began as groups demonizing nukes.