Energy Policy

[Racingdude009]

Anyone know the merits of Nuclear power over wind power, Oil, Coal ect ?

Really looking at the costs of electricity production per mega watt hour.

[rhinochopig]

Racingdude009 said:

Anyone know the merits of Nuclear power over wind power, Oil, Coal ect ?

Really looking at the costs of electricity production per mega watt hour.

Yes nuclear pays my mortgage, wind doesn't.

There was a massive debate on here a few months back, which went into KW/Hr figures - have search. 'Twas quite an interesting debate.

[V6]

It will probably work out cheaper for you to build a wind farm than a nuclear reactor.

[phumy]

V6 said:

It will probably work out cheaper for you to build a wind farm than a nuclear reactor.

Ok im up for it, yet again.

Just look to see what kW/hr you get from wind power, then nukes.

[pgtips]

Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs.

HTH

[rhinochopig]

pgtips said:

Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs.

HTH

Are your data official gubberment figures? If it is the wind stuff is likely to be bks. The cost per KW is based on the rated output of the turbine, not how much it will produce given the prevailing wind conditions. The real outputs are far far lower than those used in the finance sums.

Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 17th March 13:20

[pgtips]

rhinochopig said:

pgtips said:

Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs.

HTH

Are your data official gubberment figures? If it is the wind stuff is likely to be bks. The cost per KW is based on the rated output of the turbine, not how much it will produce given the prevailing wind conditions. The real outputs are far far lower than those used in the finance sums.

Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 17th March 13:20

I guess the point really is the there is a wide distribution of both £/kW costs and £/MWh (when accounting for load factor) for wind plant relative to the other technologies. In all cases there is not a single figure that can be quoted, but I think the numbers are reasonable averages. I agree the spread around these numbers is wider for wind than the other plant due to different wind profiles.

[V6]

phumy said:

V6 said:

It will probably work out cheaper for you to build a wind farm than a nuclear reactor.

Ok im up for it, yet again.

Just look to see what kW/hr you get from wind power, then nukes.

But surely if he wanted a nuclear reactor, he'd at least have to go halves with his neighbour? With wind he could afford one for himself.

[rhinochopig]

pgtips said:

rhinochopig said:

pgtips said:

Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs.

HTH

Are your data official gubberment figures? If it is the wind stuff is likely to be bks. The cost per KW is based on the rated output of the turbine, not how much it will produce given the prevailing wind conditions. The real outputs are far far lower than those used in the finance sums.

Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 17th March 13:20

I guess the point really is the there is a wide distribution of both £/kW costs and £/MWh (when accounting for load factor) for wind plant relative to the other technologies. In all cases there is not a single figure that can be quoted, but I think the numbers are reasonable averages. I agree the spread around these numbers is wider for wind than the other plant due to different wind profiles.

Agreed, but I think it actually goes further than that. I think the data are deliberately misleading, which is criminal when you consider how much it costs you and I in taxes.

The first googled hit on full load running hours is claiming 125 days out of a year, which quite frankly I find impossible to believe. Are they seriously expecting us to believe that the narrow margin of wind speeds, at which a tubby can run at peak power output, is fully one third of a year.


[source http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-3-eco... ]

[pgtips]

rhinochopig said:

pgtips said:

rhinochopig said:

pgtips said:

Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs.

HTH

Are your data official gubberment figures? If it is the wind stuff is likely to be bks. The cost per KW is based on the rated output of the turbine, not how much it will produce given the prevailing wind conditions. The real outputs are far far lower than those used in the finance sums.

Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 17th March 13:20

I guess the point really is the there is a wide distribution of both £/kW costs and £/MWh (when accounting for load factor) for wind plant relative to the other technologies. In all cases there is not a single figure that can be quoted, but I think the numbers are reasonable averages. I agree the spread around these numbers is wider for wind than the other plant due to different wind profiles.

Agreed, but I think it actually goes further than that. I think the data are deliberately misleading, which is criminal when you consider how much it costs you and I in taxes.

The first googled hit on full load running hours is claiming 125 days out of a year, which quite frankly I find impossible to believe. Are they seriously expecting us to believe that the narrow margin of wind speeds, at which a tubby can run at peak power output, is fully one third of a year.


[source http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-3-eco... ]

That data does look wrong or at best misleading. I typically use 27% load factor for onshore and 33% for offshore as annual averages - these were the numbers used in the levellised cost calcs £/MWh above).