Industrial wind farms

[Sonicblu]

I've been looking into installing one myself. It is a small one, but would deliver approx 25.000 KW-hours a year, which is all the hot water we use and some extra. That power costs me about 2.500 $. The machinery makes about 8000$, so there you go, all returned in some odd 4 years.
There have been som odd claims that the energy put into the mechanism will never be returned. It is complete rubbish, since it would mean that the manufacturer would be losing a lot of money on the selling 

Angus this is if you get 100% up time, most wind generators only get 25 to 30 % up time at best.. Redue the math at 25%.......

[warhed]

soda, you are talking about tearing down the containment vessel and rebuilding it.  After a nuclear facility is shut down, it can take the rods about 2 years to cool down enough to open the vessel.  During that time, you are offline.  It simply is not practical to try and rebuild a nuclear reactor and maintain the degree of safety required to operate one.

We open our reactor vessel every 2 years to refuel.  I've even had the chance to stick my head out over the pool inside the vessel and get to see a fuel rod, glowing a bright blue just like a light saber. I've also had the "luck" to work beneath the reactor.  
The old spent fuel comes out of the vessel, it is moved to the spent fuel pool.  New fuel is brought in, looks like the salt water pellets you put in your water softeners, that is stuffed inside tubes.  Put enough of the stuff close to each other and it starts to heat up (once you withdraw the control rods).  Throw some chemicals in the reactor to help kick-start a sustainable reaction, and boom, you have a very efficient way to boil water, and that fuel is going to last for 6 years.

Nowadays, it takes less than 24 hours to shut down a reactor.  There are fuel transfer tubes from the reactor to the spent fuel pool.  If moved properly, no one receives any excess dose from refueling the reactor.  Our plant in Toledo within the last 5 years or so changed out the head to their reactor vessel.  The hardest part was having it shipped from Europe, the size of the reactor vessels is absolutely awe inspiring.

[warhed]

in regards to coal, what's the technological stand on 'scrubber'?  i.e. post combustion treatment of the exhaust gases? Isn't there some way to run it through a catalyitic converter much the same way as cars?

You can make a coal plant rather clean, but you can't make the mining of coal clean.  There is no clean coal. 

[AirFlyer]

You can make a coal plant rather clean, but you can't make the mining of coal clean.  There is no clean coal. 

True enough, I live near a ton of old abandon and running coal mines(some within walking distance) and this is more then true. The sulfur run off is terrible and has every river and creek around here stained orange.

[warhed]

True enough, I live near a ton of old abandon and running coal mines(some within walking distance) and this is more then true. The sulfur run off is terrible and has every river and creek around here stained orange.

And it seems the older coal mining gets, the more destructive it becomes.

[SIM]

Uh, nuclear power plants produce plenty of extremely dangerous by-products.  Those cooling rods have to be replaced periodically and they are very dangerous to deal with.

Nuclear power plants also have a shelf life.  After they are shutdown, they are left to rot where they stand.  They cannot be rebuilt or refurbished as the core materials have all started breaking down to thier elemental components.

Nuclear is not cheap.  It is not free and no one has made any profit from them to date.  If they were not government subsidized, they would bankrupt the companies that run them.

Sorry Skuzzy, but I think the last line there is incorrect........My company is about to build another nuke plant here in SC. The tree-huggers cant stand the idea, but each and everyone of them flip on their lights at night and are happy to have them......

Tree hugging/Ocean loving/Eco-terrorists are the ultimate hypocrites.....They preach against everything that is done today, but contribute to it all as much as anyone else!

[Angus]

Ain't no tree-hugger, but you don't have to be one to have open eyes for alternative energy sources. As for now, wind power is cheaper than nuclear.
I'm not that keen on those big ones though (BTW, the biggest areas now in expansion are in China AFAIK). I'd rather see many more smaller ones for private use, like in rural areas & suburbs. It only takes a small one on your roof to keep your boiler stocked with hot water, and that sums up to an impressive amount of energy.

[Skuzzy]

Sorry Skuzzy, but I think the last line there is incorrect........My company is about to build another nuke plant here in SC. The tree-huggers cant stand the idea, but each and everyone of them flip on their lights at night and are happy to have them......

Tree hugging/Ocean loving/Eco-terrorists are the ultimate hypocrites.....They preach against everything that is done today, but contribute to it all as much as anyone else!

Federal subsidies total around $13 billion dollars U.S. for each nuclear plant.  In the last 50 years the subsidies paid to power companies have exceeded $100 billion dollars U.S.

The actual costs to run the plants are slightly more efficient than a coal plant, with a caveat in the form of tax credits and subsidies.  However, the initial build costs, and inevitable decommissioning costs end up driving the actual overall costs to a substantially higher figure.  Without the subsidies and tax credits there is no way a power company could ever recoup the initial investment and decommissiong costs associated with nuclear.

Without fail, every place a nuclear plant has been added to the grid, the local customers have had to pay higher rates.  Whether this is just a move by greedy power corporations who see an oppertunity to increase thier profits or due to actual costs associated with a nuclear plant is something I cannot answer.  I can say, it has left a bad taste in the mouths of the customers who have to bear those costs increases.

I am one of those customers and our rates have increased 140%, with each increase being blamed on the costs associated with the nuclear power plant.

That has nothing to do with "tree huggers".

More subsidies are on the way.  A tax credit of $0.018 cents per kilowatt/hour was allocated to nuclear in 2005.  The tax credit assures nuclear will continue to be cheaper than coal, even though it is artificial. The latest offering will assure billions of dollars in additional subsidies to power companies who want to build nuclear plants.  Apparently, the cost to build a plant has tripled, in the last decade, so the power companies need more money before considering deploying a nuclear based option.  That passed in 12/2009.  Merry Christmas.

Do any of you actually pay attention to what goes on with bills and such things?  It is all public information.

[Skuzzy]

How fortuitous.  I just read an article regarding GE's new wind generator design.

1)  It uses permanent magnets instead of electromagnets, so it does not need to draw power from the grid, nor does it need a starter motor.
2)  The blade diameter is 376 feet.  Carbon fiber with computer driven servo controls to vary pitch based on wind speed.
3)  It does not have a gear case.  This eliminates one of the major maintenance issues with a wind generator.  This means it is direct drive.
4)  The generator is a new design.  20 feet in diameter and weighing in at 90 tons.  At 8 RPM is deliver 1.6MW.  8 RPM is reached with 7MPH winds.  It produces a maximum of 4MW at 20 RPM.  4MW should cover about 3,000 homes.
5)  Self-contained electronics condition the power to match the grid.

Sounds like a step forward.  They are undergoing testing in the Netherlands right now.

[Delirium]

Federal subsidies total around $13 billion dollars U.S. for each nuclear plant.  In the last 50 years the subsidies paid to power companies have exceeded $100 billion dollars U.S.

Admittedly, I'm not that knowledgeable regarding energy producers. However, I'd much rather spend $50 inside the US than spend $1 that is sent overseas, particularly to the Middle East.

[bj229r]

Up by Lake Benton, Minnesota they had some on the hills around there.  It was a pretty cool sight on the horizon.

(Image removed from quote.)

I'm really surprised with the number of anti-wind power people.  Not doubting you sluggish, but where are you getting your numbers from?

Aren't they the ones that quit working when it got too cold?

[Sonicblu]

Federal subsidies total around $13 billion dollars U.S. for each nuclear plant.  In the last 50 years the subsidies paid to power companies have exceeded $100 billion dollars U.S.

The actual costs to run the plants are slightly more efficient than a coal plant, with a caveat in the form of tax credits and subsidies.  However, the initial build costs, and inevitable decommissioning costs end up driving the actual overall costs to a substantially higher figure.  Without the subsidies and tax credits there is no way a power company could ever recoup the initial investment and decommissiong costs associated with nuclear.

Without fail, every place a nuclear plant has been added to the grid, the local customers have had to pay higher rates.  Whether this is just a move by greedy power corporations who see an oppertunity to increase thier profits or due to actual costs associated with a nuclear plant is something I cannot answer.  I can say, it has left a bad taste in the mouths of the customers who have to bear those costs increases.
I am one of those customers and our rates have increased 140%, with each increase being blamed on the costs associated with the nuclear power plant.

That has nothing to do with "tree huggers".

More subsidies are on the way.  A tax credit of $0.018 cents per kilowatt/hour was allocated to nuclear in 2005.  The tax credit assures nuclear will continue to be cheaper than coal, even though it is artificial. The latest offering will assure billions of dollars in additional subsidies to power companies who want to build nuclear plants.  Apparently, the cost to build a plant has tripled, in the last decade, so the power companies need more money before considering deploying a nuclear based option.  That passed in 12/2009.  Merry Christmas.

Do any of you actually pay attention to what goes on with bills and such things?  It is all public information.

This is true all utilities are governed by a State corp commission. The only reason they build a nuclear plant right now
is they are guaranteed to make a profit by law.

Everything your utility does goes on their cost of doing business sheet then they go to the corp commission and say look our cost of doing business is 3 billion a year we want our profit. That is how they justify rate increases.
We had a nuclear power plant here in AZ that got build and sat in the desert for years not producing power. But the utility say hey we spent all this money to build it we need to re coupe cost so they got a rate hike.

If you are guaranteed a profit why not spend as much money as you can 2% on 3 billion is much better that 2% on 100 million.

[Skuzzy]

I have no qualms about companies making a profit.  I cannot claim they are making excess profit either.  My main beef is this.  While we are asked to pay higher rates to cover the costs of the nuclear power plants, we are also paying the taxes to cover the subsidies they are paid.  They are draining the barrel at both ends.

Of course, they are also subsidizing wind power as well.  I hove no personal experience with what a wind farm does to the rates of the customers, so I am not going to address it.  I leave it to those who are feeding those farms.

At the end of the day, what is true cost per MW of power generated by any of these measures?  Add in all the susidies and what it takes to run and maintain any of them over a 25 year (arbitrary number) period of time and what do we have?

The numbers exist, but they are a bear to dig out of all the chaff.

[soda72]

If you ever fly into the DFW airport take a look out the window during the landing approach.  There are several large wind mills that have been put up recently, that are quite large.

University of California Television, had a lecture on youtube about wind power that was interesting..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_YtsF02viM

[Skuzzy]

I have seen those wind farms, but I have no idea who is using them.  What company owns them?  Are they just testing, or are they actually being used to generate power?