Wind Power Expansion in 2007 Beats Nuclear 10-to-1

[tinrobot]

Worldwatch Institute is reporting in a Vital Signs report that in 2007 new wind power installations outpaced new nuclear power plant construction by 10-to-1. Globally, the wind industry added 20,000 MW of new capacity last year, while the nuclear industry added less than 2,000 MW. Three new reactors in India, China, Romania accounted for this small amount of growth.

The report notes that though 34 reactors are under construction around the world—20 of which are in Asia, with China and India having 6 a piece—12 of these have been under construction for 20 years or more. Worldwatch reports that construction problems, engineering challenges and safety concerns are delaying many projects. Financial issues also are an issue: According to Moody’s credit rating agency, “many of the current expectations regarding new nuclear generation are overly ambitious” and costs for next-generation plants are higher than the usual $3,500 per kilowatt figure used by the industry.


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/wind-power-outpaces-nuclear-2007.php

[madokie]

1. I predict that in 10 years we will have a net decrease in the number of nuke plants

here in the US. Wind and solar are stepping up to the challenge with lots of growth potential in the next few years.

[kgrandia]

2. Agreed!

[kgrandia]

3. Great story

The report that Treehugger wrote on is jammed full of interesting stuff. I just did a post on some of the interesting China info it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x156934

Good find! If I could recommend this post 10 times I would!

[phantom power]

4. Coal beat them both combined by something like 20:1

BTW, if you correct for capacity factor, that ratio of wind/nuclear would be more like 4:1

[kristopher]

5. How did it work out in the US? nt

[phantom power]

6. I don't know. Does it matter?

[kristopher]

8. Yes, I think so.

We are concerned with domestic policy so why wouldn't it matter. Oh, right, I can see where it would to you since neither of your points have any traction in the US and you wouldn't want that to be the example followed.

[phantom power]

10. My point is, the CO2 is continuing to kill us all...

and it doesn't really matter if it's coming from the US, China, India, or anywhere else.

[kristopher]

11. It matters a great deal from one perspective

That would be reality. Change starts somewhere; it isn't an instantaneous process that is magically accomplished in one fell swoop. There is an existing model of energy production that people are pursuing because it is proven. WE can And I believe we are poised to do so) lead the way in implementing a new model for energy production and consumption. What those who focus on failure too often ignore is that, in fact, successful innovation is the more common response to intense technical and resource challenges than is failure. I am absolutely certain that we can make a positive transition as a result of the challenges we face.

Just to try something different imagine that we might actually solve the fossil fuel and climate change problems and come out a better species for having had the challenge. That doesn't presuppose the necessity for a massive die off either.

[losthills]

7. Nuclear power is the most expensive method of boiling water

ever devised. It's a relic of the cold war and a rusting cog in the military/industrial complex. We have so many better ways of generating electricity at our disposal now, I doubt if it will even be part of the debate in ten years. The main thing we'll be talking about is what to do with all the radioactive waste that was produced in the mis-guided nuclear era...

[NNadir]

9. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up, like 0.201(10) < 0.055

In fact, there are ZERO fundie anti-nukes on this website who have been able to distinguish the difference between PEAK power and energy.

In fact, I think they deliberately make this misrepresentation, because otherwise their weak minded crap looks even more ridiculous.

In fact, Bubba, the figures for 2007 are in:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Wind energy 2006, 0.264 quads, in 2007, 0.319 quads.

Do you know how to subtract 0.319 from 0.264?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

The answer is 0.055.

Now, I know that you don't give a rat's ass about dangerous natural gas. You couldn't care less how much dangerous fossil fuel gas is indiscriminately into the atmosphere, for instance, and thus spend all of your time criticizing the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas energy.

But I care about dangerous natural gas. Here are the numbers for production of dangerous natural gas fueled energy. 2006: 22.191 quads. 2007: 23.625.

No idea about how to subtract 22.191 from 236.25?

No surprise there either.

The answer is 1.434. You couldn't care less that the increase in 2007 in dangerous fossil fuels is more than 4 times the total output of wind energy in 2007.


The 2007 figures are in, and renewable energy has once again, failed to keep up with the increase in the only dangerous fossil fuel of which it has any utility whatsoever at replacing. I note too, that we are ignoring the spinning reserve requirements that frequently reduce or eliminate the utility of wind power.

Nuclear energy has nothing to do with wind, since nuclear energy is a reliable form of energy, operating with better than 90% capacity utilization, and wind is an unreliable form of energy operating with less than 25% capacity utilization. Nuclear plants do what they are designed to do, which is run flat out, making them the only alternative to coal.

Even so, nuclear energy set a record, despite continued reports of its death from dangerous fossil fuel shills, for production in 2007, producing 8.415 quads in 2007, up by 0.201 quads from 2006.

Like I say, if you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

Fundie math is a pisser.

It doesn't matter, of course, to people who can't do third grade math, but a "quad" is 1.055 exajoules.