Saturday, 21 December 2019

New South Wales (NSW)..…plans to…..attract cheap wind and solar to replace its ageing coal-fired power stations



New South Wales generates about 73,000 GWh of pretty dirty electricity every year. 6,500 TWh is from wind and solar, but there’s 60,000 GWh still generated from fossil fuels; 57,500 GWh from black coal.

----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

COST OF LARGE SCALE SOLAR PV TO GENERATE 60,000 GWh

Coleambally Solar Farm:
Installed Capacity 150 MW.
Type - Single Axis Tracking.
Generation 380 GWh per year.
Capital Cost A$236 million.
Number of Solar Panels 565,488.
Area 5.7 km2.
Lifespan 25–30 years.

Number of Coleambally-sized solar farms required to generate 60,000 GWh per year: 158.
Capital cost for 27.5 [average] years of generation: A$37.30 billion.
Factored capital cost for 60 years of generation: A$81.4 billion
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

COST OF ONSHORE WIND TO GENERATE 60,000 GWh

Silverton Wind Farm:
Installed Capacity 199 MW.
Generation 780 GWh per year.
Capital cost A$450 million.
Number of turbines 58 x 3.43 MW.
Area 550 km2.
Lifespan 25 years.

Number of Silverton-sized wind farms required to generate 60,000 GWh per year: 77
Capital cost for 25 years of generation: A$34.65 billion.
Factored capital cost for 60 years of generation: A$83.2 billion
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

COST OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO GENERATE 60,000 GWh

GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor:
Installed Capacity 300 MW;
Generation 2,365 GWh per year;
Capital cost A$870 million;
Number of reactors 1 x 300 MW;
Area 0.059 km2;
Lifespan 60 years.

Number of BWRX-300 SMRs required to generate 60,000 GWh per year: 26
Capital cost for 60 years of generation: A$22.6 billion
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

Tuesday, 12 November 2019

How Nuclear Power in the UK has improved the Life, Lifestyle and Health of Someone You Know – and Maybe You (Ukraine added 23 Nov 2019)




From 1956 to today, the UK nuclear power plants have generated 3,000 TWh of low-carbon, 24/7 electricity - free of airborne pollutants, GHG emissions and toxic pollutants of land and water.

In 2009, 27.4% of the UK’s 376 TWh of electricity came from coal-fired power plants. That’s 103 TWh.

In 2009, those 103 TWh of electricity from burning highly polluting coal caused 1,601 premature deaths and 1,073,958 cases of ‘Lower Respiratory Symptoms’ [LRS]

Premature Deaths caused by Coal: 15.5/TWh
LRS caused by Coal: 10,427/TWh
------------------------------//------------------------------
Beneficial health effects from 3000 TWh of Pollution-Free Electricity generated by Nuclear Power:

Premature Deaths Saved: 46,500 UK Citizens
LRS Prevented in: 31,281,000 UK Citizens

------------------------------//------------------------------
And Incidentally – Savings in Total Health Costs:

£32 Billion to £90 Billion Per Year

------------------------------//------------------------------
Nuclear Power Generation in Ukraine 
1970 to 2019. 
Somewhere in the media, every day of every year since April 1986, some anti-nuclear hype is foisted upon the general public.

But how many premature deaths have been saved and cases of respiratory ailments prevented by nuclear power generation in the Ukraine, displacing the burning of coal?

At 15.5 per TWh, that's 45,614 premature deaths saved.

At 10,427 per TWh, that's 30,685,000 cases of LSR prevented.
--------------------//--------------------
Look forward to a BBC documentary on this very subject.
--------------------//--------------------



Thursday, 24 October 2019

94% REDUCTION IN ENERGY STORAGE COSTS - WILL THIS SOLVE 'THE INTERMITTENCY PROBLEM'?


July 2018 was a very poor month for wind power. It fell 3.4 TWh below the average monthly figure for the year of 4.5 TWh

The UK’s 20,000 MW installed capacity of onshore and offshore wind turbines operated at just 7% capacity factor to generate 1.1 TWh of electricity in July 2018. 

Had they operated  at the 30.25% average capacity factor for the year of, 4.5 TWh would have been generated.  

That’s a shortfall of 3.4 TWh.
------------------------------//------------------------------

 "...Tesla’s Powerpacks are lithium-ion batteries, similar to a laptop or a mobile phone battery........In a Tesla Powerpack, the base unit is the size of a large thick tray. Around sixteen of these are inserted into a fridge-sized cabinet to make a single Tesla “Powerpack” ........With 210 kilowatt-hour per Tesla Powerpack, the full South Australian installation is estimated to be made up of several hundred units..."  
     
"...A control system will also be needed to dictate the battery’s charging and discharging. This is both for the longevity of battery as well to maximise its economic benefit........For example, the deeper the regular discharge, the shorter the lifetime of the battery, which has a warranty period of 15 years..." 
26,356 of these, with a capital cost of:  £1,318 billion can rectify one month of UK low wind power generation, for a lifespan of 15 years.
But for 60 years [The design life of a Nuclear Power Plant] Power Reserve Plants would have to be built 4XThe capital cost, to rectify 1 month of low-wind would be:
4 x £1,318 billion = £5,272 billion.

------------------------------//------------------------------
To store 3.4 TWh of energy, for delivery over 31 days, would require 97,143 Energy Vault Plants, with a lifespan of 30 years. At US$7.5 million [£5.85 million], they would have a capital cost of: £568 billion.

But for the 60 years [The design life of a Nuclear Power Plant] Energy Vault Plants would have to be built 2X. The capital cost, to rectify 1 month of low-wind would be:

2 x £568 billion = £1,136 billion.
------------------------------//------------------------------
To store 3.4 TWh of energy, for delivery over 31 days, would require 13,600 CRYOBattery Plants, with a lifespan of 30 to 40 years and a capital cost of: 
£150 billion.

But for the 60 years design life of a Nuclear Power Plant [80 years with economical life extension], CRYOBattery Plants would have to be built 2X. 
The capital cost, to rectify 1 month of low-wind would be:
2 x £150 billion = £300 billion.
------------------------------//------------------------------
The 13.5 GW of onshore wind, with a capital cost of £15 billion and the 8.5 GW of offshore wind, with a capital cost of £21 billion, can now be backed up by storage to provide 24/7 electricity, for an additional capital cost of £150 billion.
That's a total capital cost of just £186 billion for renewables + storage to supply 54 TWh per year of 24/7 electricity, for their 25/30 year lifespan.
There is a consideration though, that £186 billion would finance the capital cost of 8 Hinkley Point C nuclear power plants, which would generate 202 TWh of 24/7 electricity every year, for their 60 year design lives.
For the renewables + storage to supply for 60 years a capital cost factor of X2.4 needs to be applied to wind power and X2 to storage. taking the capital cost to - £386 billion.
Renewables + storage will be 2X the capital cost for the generation of about 1/4 of the amount of 24/7, low-carbon electricity nuclear power plants will generate.
It would appear 24/7 electricity from renewables + storage still has a way to go.


Wednesday, 16 October 2019

Labour's Offshore Wind Policy Overstates The Capacity To Supply Electricity By Over 1/3rd


There are issues with the 2 figures the Policy states, which leave it wide open for damaging scrutiny.

£83 billion over 10 years, will average out at £8.3 billion per year.

The very latest offshore wind farm, 3.6 GW Dogger Bank, using the gigantic and very latest GE 12 MW offshore wind turbines, has a capacity factor of 54%, compared to the 38.5% capacity factor for the UK’s current 8.4 GW of offshore wind farms.

This is a tremendous 40 % ‘technological gain’ and it would be irresponsible to anticipate bettering a 54% capacity factor over the next 10 years.

£8.3 billion per year of capital investment, as a pro-rata proportion of Dogger Bank’s capital cost of £9.0 billion, would finance 3.32 GW of cutting-edge wind turbine technology.

 3.32 GW would only be able to supply 4,150,000 households in the first year and 33.2 GW of capacity, after 10 years of construction, would only be able to supply 41,500,000 households.

Stating 57,000,000 households is exaggerating the capability of what £83 billion of investment will deliver for the voting public and for the investment community, 
by 37%.


That is surely unacceptable in political and financial terms and should be addressed forthwith.
------------------------------//------------------------------
PS: It's a bit misleading to talk about 41,500,000 households, when there are only 27,000,000 in the UK.

The 54% capacity factor for Dogger Bank was calculated from a BEIS household-usage figure of 3,781 kWh per year.

After the capital expenditure of £83 billion, 33.2 GW of offshore wind at 54% capacity factor will be able to supply, on average, 157 TWh of intermittent electricity each year.

Th UK uses about 360 TWh per year, but it has to be of the 24/7 variety. So £83 billion invested in offshore wind, will, apparently, supply 44% of the UK's electricity generation.

But - to get it to 24/7 'quality':

For every 10 MW of wind power added....at least 8 MW of backup power must also be dedicated 

However, that's another capital cost investment in gas-fired power plants, which will create many more jobs, but won't do a lot for Labour's 'Net Zero-Carbon' policy.

Another blog post story, for another time. 

Tuesday, 6 August 2019

Young Family Members will abhor the ramifications of YOUR activities: On THEIR Lifestyles and THEIR Planet!




Powerful NGOs, well-rewarded lobbyists, industry bosses, influential individuals and Parliamentarians – supporters of renewable technologies, are chivvying for 35 GW of onshore wind:

Onshore wind has by far the lowest capital cost per MWh of generation, of any renewable technology.


Do you have any idea of the capital cost of 35 GW of onshore wind?
What about the capital cost of the equivalent 10.5 GW of nuclear power?


35 GW of onshore wind is 65 Whitelee-sized windfarms. They would have a capital cost £39.00 billion and would generate intermittent electricity, for their 22.5-year lifespan and occupy 3,445 km² of land.


10.5 GW of nuclear power is 3.22 Sizewell C-sized nuclear power plants [npps]. They would have a capital cost of £51.53 billion and would generate 24/7 electricity, for their 60-year design life from sites occupying 2.16 km² [1/1600th of the area].


The capital cost of onshore wind for 60 years of generation increases by a ratio of 60:22.5 and rises to £104.00 billion  
2X the capital cost of nuclear.
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------
The Capital Cost of a Technology Reveals the dark side!

There is no hiding place! There is no room for obfuscation.

If the capital cost of a technology is high, it tells of:

Unnecessary waste of precious material.
Wanton use of costly resources.
Excessive use of energy - fossil-fuelled for the vast majority of the time.
Unproductive involvement of high-cost labour.
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------


35 GW of onshore windfarms use an extra 15,180,000 tonnes of steel more than the nuclear power plants.





That will waste 84 TWh of energy
mainly fossil-fuelled energy [the lifespan generation of 2.9 Whitelees].






For all of that steel, 24,290,000 extra tonnes of iron ore will be used and 11,690,000 more tonnes of coal burned.




---------------------------------------//----------------------------------------

For land-wrecking turbine foundations and roads, an extra 28,733,000 tonnes of concrete will be laid.

5.10 TWh of fossil-fuelled energy used ,  
966,000 tonnes of coal burned, 3,278,000 tonnes of COreleased.




---------------------------------------//---------------------------------------

For the sake of the Younger Members of your Family, you need to:

Consider what the future holds for them, in economical and environmental terms, long after you’re gone.

Search your conscience if your support of renewables imposes upon them:

2X the capital cost; 18X the unwarranted waste of precious materials and resources.


The attendant GHG emissions and fossil-fuelled energy use every step of the way, from mining/quarrying, through processing, manufacture and installation.

Envision for them, their experience of 1600X the scenic desecration, ecosystem destruction, species wipe-out and waste mountains.

U-Turn your antipathy towards LOW-CARBON/RENEWABLE NUCLEAR POWER.

Make nuclear ‘happen’ by helping to negate the crippling cost of capital, through supporting Government proposals for pragmatic financing of npps.

Use your good offices and prominence to ‘tell it straight’, to the general public, politicians and the media.


Cease hiding behind the obfuscation and duplicity that defines the renewable technology industries.
----------------------------------------//----------------------------------------
Note: 35 GW of onshore wind is 3.22X the onshore wind capacity required to generate the same total of MWh as 3,260 MW of nuclear power [e.g: Hinkjley Point C]. All of the figures quoted above are 3.22X greater than the calculated data from this link:

Hinkley Point C Vs Whitelee Windfarm: Steel [All Metals] & Concrete