sci.energy

On Sep 28, 5:51 pm, nada wrote:
> >From "Nuclear Australia"
>
> Critics of nuclear energy sometimes point to Germany's planned nuclear
> phase-out policy as an example of the industry's limited future. Let
> us put aside the very credible discussions regarding the possibility
> of that policy being reversed for a moment and turn the tables.
>
> How are German renewables performing?
>
> As reported in the Herald Sun, Terry McCrann digs into the performance
> record of one of the largest wind powered systems in Europe.
>
> Germany's Netz operates the grid which has one of the biggest
> 'feed-in' wind power sources in Europe. Each year it produces a
> WindReport. The latest makes interesting, sober, reading.
>
> Germany has 18,300MW (megawatts) of installed wind capacity --
> close to half Australia's total installed electricity generation
> capacity, about double Victoria's.
>
> Netz draws on 7600MW of that.
>
> In the precise German way, it tells us that maximum feed-in was
> 6234MW at 9am on 15/12/05.
>
> Sound great? Except when you read the minimum feed in, at
> on 27/05/05. Just 8MW. And no, I'm not missing a nought or two.
>
> Some 7600MW of installed capacity delivered just 8MW. When the
> wind don't blow, the electricity don't flow.
>
> On average across the year, the 7600 MW of installed wind capacity
> produced 1327MW. That's an operational level of 18 per cent of
> capacity. In rational terms, it's insanity.
>
> Indeed as Netz notes, installed wind capacity went up 12 per
> cent in the year but actual wind power fed in to the grid went up just
> per cent. Because of lower "wind availability".
>
> The way you 'solve' this is that 'traditional' power stations with
> capacities equal to 90 per cent of the installed wind power capacity
> must be permanently on line to guarantee power supply.
>
> So not only do you have to install six to seven times as much wind
> capacity as the output you will actually get, but you also have to
> build 'shadow' coal/gas/nuclear(?) as well.
>
> That's one power station for the cost of 12 or so.
>
> Did I say insanity? Unless you can build big enough batteries to
> store the power generated when the wind does blow.
>
> Funny I should say that. has actually pioneered exactly such
> a battery. It's the size of four shipping containers, uses
> 'undisclosed' chemicals and can produce all of 1MW for four hours.
>
> See this link for projected vs. actual performance for any day (just
> select via the calendar on the right side of the page). Interested
> that they seem to always exceed the projection, but fall WELL short of
> the 7,600 MWe capacity. The 18% number looks about right from my
> perusal.
>
> As much as I hate to be baited into nuclear vs. renewable discussions,
> the data bears careful digestion. Just as I've said from the
> beginning, when you objectify and quantify the discussion and base it
> on demonstrated performance - the picture becomes MUCH more clear.
> I've learned something though. In my previous back-of-the-envelope
> calculations, I was crediting wind with a 30% capacity factor. Seeing
> the 18% above, I guess I should pull that number back a bit.

A US military submarine can go 4 years on a single rod of nuclear
power.
That's all the traveling, electricity.