81 comments on How Uranium Depletion Affects the Economics of Nuclear Power
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
81 comments on How Uranium Depletion Affects the Economics of Nuclear Power
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Ask not what your next President can do, Ask what you can do for your tribe
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- UK - Stansted Airport expansion gets go-ahead
- RAMseS: a new agricultural paradigm
- RAMseS: a new agricultural paradigm
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.







GAIA Host Collective
Studies[1] have shown that the capacity factor of wind is around 35% at it's highest.
"The reported annual capacity factor for the UK wind power has varied from 24% to 31%, with a long-term average of around 27% (DUKES, 1998 and DUKES, 2005); these reported figures include downtime due to maintenance, and forced outages due to mechanical failure. In contrast to these reported figures, recent studies (cf. Dale et al., 2004) have tended to use a long-term annual average capacity factor of 35%; this decision is likely based on the higher wind speeds, and hence capacity factors, that are expected from offshore wind power developments, and a bias towards future onshore wind power developments in higher wind speed regions such as Scotland. A pessimistic view of UK capacity factors for wind power has also been put forward by a number of authors, suggesting capacity factor figures of 25% and below (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2003; Sharman, 2005)."
Somewhat lower than the 60% lower estimate you gave for nuclear power. In addition you claim that it is unlikely that 1500 turbines will go down at once. In an area the size of the UK it not that unlikely that an unusual large scale weather event could cause a significant portion of the wind power to go off-line. Since the UK is only connected to Europe by 2 2GW busbars (which incidentally both once went out of service despite being an event considered so unlikely no contingency plan existed, demonstrating that unlikely events do occur) it is effectively an isolated region.
The main problem with wind, however, is not it's capacity factor but the security of supply. On average the wind will supply a given amount of power to the network but this amount cannot be changed as it is dictated by the wind. For instance, there can be no spinning reserve with wind power, in the event of a frequency drop on the network due to a large plant coming off line, the first port of call for maintaining system stability is for the running plants to increase their output, they're supposed to operate slightly less than their rated capacity to do this (whether they actually do or not is another matter). Hydro which is used for peak demand cannot supply emergency power as for the first few fractions of a second of output they cause further strain on the network, which would result in a further drop in frequency and could cause the other generators to become desynchronised. Following taking up the slack by increasing power to the running generators, the spinning reserve is brought online. These are generators which are spun up but not supplying power to the network. The next step following this is to spin up off-line generators, in order to replace the reserve capacity, this can take minutes to hours depending on the type of plant. How would you suggest any of this is achieved with wind or indeed wave power when you have no clue how much wind or waves will be available at any given time? There is more to the security of the electricity network than just the installed capacity. You are correct in stating that storage could solve some of these problems, but this technology is in its early stages.
Further problems with wind are that the best resources bear no particular relation to existing load centres such as cities etc. When you consider that the transmission infrastructure necessary is at least as expensive as the installed capacity this cost can be quite significant.
For what it's worth I don't have anything against wind and wave power, I'm just skeptical that they can supply a secure base supply. In fact, as I'm hoping to start a PhD based on optimising various types of marine energy machines next year, I actually have a distinct bias towards this resource! Therefore, as someone who is going to be doing a little bit of the R&D you mention I feel compelled to warn you that we will be stuck with conventional sources for a while to come.
You also state the required dispatchable power could come from biofuels. There is considerable debate on this board about the viability of biofuels, I personally don't know enough to comment.
[1] Graham Sinden, Characteristics of the UK wind resource: Long-term patterns and relationship to electricity demand, Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 112-127
EDIT FOR TYPOS
Note that wind capacity factor relates average power output to maximum output, while nuclear load factor relates actual power output to design output. No-one (except you?) claims wind turbines are expected to produce maximum power continuously, but that is exactly what design output is meant to be.
A better comparison is between nuclear load factor and wind variability. In Alberta (pdf) they calculate they need an excess capacity of 2-7% to cope with variability at moderate (20%) wind penetration. "The emerging consensus in America – from a review of several utility and other studies by the National renewable Energy Laboratory - is that the variability of wind adds very little cost.".
In Denmark the standard deviation of wind variability one hour ahead is 3% (the UK will be significantly smaller). The standard deviation of the error in predicting demand in the UK is about 1.3%, so variability over that timescale is comparable to unpredictable demand fluctuations and poses no new problem.
Using wind instead of nuclear does not require increasing spinning reserves. Nuclear power certainly cannot provide spinning reserve - start-up times are I believe several hours. It is because of large lumpy unreliable power sources like nuclear that we need spinning reserve in the first place - the spinning reserve is sized to cope with losing the largest lump. As we move away from those sources the need will in fact decrease, not increase.
Whenever wind power output exceeds momentary demand, some of the turbines will be feathered or load will be shedded in other ways. These can quickly be brought back on-line if demand increases. Contrary to your claim, there is no reason wind or wave cannot be operated at reduced power levels providing a reserve. Combining wind power with energy storage is sensible and provides additional reserve. I agree more research is needed here.
All power sources have varying availability and we need additional installed capacity for reserves. Diversity of supply is good and combining wind, wave, tidal, biomass CHP and other sources, pumped and other storage, regional grids and demand management we can create a reliable system.
While nuclear plants are in/near them? The distributed nature of wind and small CHP can actually better match power supply to demand in some regions, but often people don't live in windy places. Offshore wind and wave requires upgrading and extending the electricity grid, this needs investment but is a small proportion of the total energy costs. TREC style electricity interconnects would require upgrading the grid anyway.
First of all, I do not recall mentioning nuclear anywhere until you mentioned it. My assertion was simply that wind is not suitable for base load. At all times I have referred to alternatives as conventional sources.
You state:
"Note that wind capacity factor relates average power output to maximum output, while nuclear load factor relates actual power output to design output. No-one (except you?) claims wind turbines are expected to produce maximum power continuously, but that is exactly what design output is meant to be."
So to clarify, a wind capacity factor of 35% means that if you install 100 MW of wind capacity, you will expect to produce, on average 35 MW of power averaged over the period on which the figure is measured. If we scale up the wind farms and spread them out so we have say, 25GW of capacity, we should expect to get a pretty constant 35% into the network from all sources averaged out geographically, i.e. 8.75 GW for 25 GW installed maximum possible capacity, i.e. the possible capacity if the wind was blowing really strong everywhere.
Note that the transmission system to achieve this will have to be rated to the maximum capacity otherwise the averaging geographically will not work as congestion will prevent power going where it's needed.
With nuclear capacity averaging 64.7% nationwide from your figures, if there were 25 GW of installed nuclear capacity we ought to expect to get, on average, a pretty reliable 16.175 GW of actual input to the grid.
I fail to see how these two figures cannot be compared directly. For a given installed productive capacity a certain average power output is achieved. In addition, a wind turbine has a lifetime of approximately half that of a nuclear installation.
You also state:
"While nuclear plants are in/near them?"
They may not be right next door, but they're certainly not up to three kilometres off-shore (for near shore) or ten kilometers or more (off-shore) or in hilly or mountainous regions on ridgelines in order to exploit the topographic acceleration where the hill or ridge causes the wind to accelerate as it is forced over it.
As for the reserve provided by wind farms.
You are correct that a nuclear plant may require up to a day and a half to come on line in some cases, this is not spinning reserve. Spinning reserve are synchronous machines which have been spun up in advance to the synchronous speed of the the grid, but not bearing any actual load. You will find in the document you referred to definitions of the three types of reserve.
Wind farms may be able to operate a form a spinning reserve, the amount of which available in any location will be unpredictable more than an hour in advance, but this is not the same as operating under the rated capacity for a conventional plant. In the event of a frequency drop due to a plant outage, I explained the response is to increase the output at generators already connected to the grid and supplying power. This is achieved by increasing the fuel supply to the generator. Since no wind plant can know more that one hour in advance what it's fuel supply will be, how can it provide for this? Nuclear plants most certainly can, and indeed, are obliged to operate less than their rated capacity to allow for this fast-frequency response as it is known.
I reiterate my actual point, wind power is fine, but not suitable for base load.
edited for many typos! There's probably still plenty there too.
And another thing, you also state it is because of large lumpy power stations that we require reserve. As I have already pointed out, one of the worst losses in the UK was the grid interconnect with france, not the loss of a power station. Power losses are more frequently the result of transmission failures as this infrastructure is much more vulnerable to weather, trees falling over etc. The loss of the grid interconnect to a 1500MW wind farm will appear identical to the rest of the grid as the loss of a nuclear power station.
Sorry about this, but there is one more thing I noticed when reviewing the paper you cited.
The following maximum errors were recorded in predicting wind speed nationwide:
UK: not quoted
Denmark: 18%
Germany: 20%
The following are the expected errors in the outputs compared to that predicted for given time periods before production. This means this is actually the error in what was produced compared to what was predicted to be produced.
1hr___________
UK: 3.1%
Denmark: 3%
2 hrs_________
Denmark: 5.6%
3.5 hrs_______
UK: 6%
4 hrs_________
Denmark: 10%
So 4 hrs before they had to supply electricity the Danish producers would have been wrong about what they could produce by 10% etc.