Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
Roflwaffle,
I am not going to quote your posts because it’s pretty long, but I’ll start at the bottom and work my way up.
You refer in post 103 “You really think someone of middle eastern descent”. If drawing a connection of the habitants of the middle east region being of the Arabian race (because it’s pretty clear we are not talking about the Israelis) or identifying members of Al-Qiada being Arab as well makes me a racist then I guess I can live with that, my fiends won’t hold it against me. If you want to Ad Hominum me on that then fine.
|
Saying that some members of a terrorist organization are of a certain race isn't racist if they are. What's racist is tossing in statements like "The U.S. has shown that they can even defend their border from immigrants". When there's nothing to defend! Anyway, where was the Ad Hominem in103?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
Regarding the NREL link, I can do a 40% duty cycle, there will be rare cites that will give you that, it definitely represents a best case solution.
|
Again, the NREL link wasn't using a 40% duty cycle, it was using a 34% duty cycle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
The NREL link is in my last post, and I hadn't seen your earlier stuff so that's my bad. Going off of the first link in your post (78), the 4.8c/kWh figure assumes a 42%/34% capacity factor depending on wind speed, and the low end isn't far off from the ~30% capacity factor seen in the real world.
|
And as usual feel free to scale it to account for the 30% U.S. wind average.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duffman
There will be a lot of sites that give you 30% and there will be many sites that give you less, real world examples reflect that.
|
The U.S. average is ~30% IIRC, which is all the sites.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duffman
If you go to that site, they are pretty clear as to what they are doing for the lost part wrt formulas, but if you open their sheet they multiply their O&M by 0.6 and never explain why, I corrected that and lower the production to 40 and 30% duty cycles which I think are again fair to generous and resulting in 4.27 cents and 5.7 cents/kWh.
|
It looks like the change in O&M costs comes from the change in observed versus projected costs
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NREL
The detailed baseline numbers were developed in the DOE WindPACT project started in 1999. These costs have been adjusted in certain categories to bring them in line with cost data available in late 2001, when the DOE Low Wind Speed Turbine project was established.
|
That said, using the full O&M amount and dropping production from 42% and 34% utilization to 40%/30% seems fair. With the end result being right at the ~4.8c/kWh for nuclear using the EIA's figures and current pricing. Course, we're neglecting the higher capital costs and greater financing needed for nukes, but either way they're neck and neck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duffman
What about what I have done do you not like? I didn’t open your links as I think that 5 cents/kWh is a very fair price for nuclear, most of my links put it in that ballpark, it all depends on the interest rate.
|
It isn't about "fair" it's about accurate. And ~4.8c/kWh does seem to be accurate as per the EIA's info and current prices.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duffman
That said how is nuclear any more expensive than wind on a kWh basis? Yet if you look at the NREL link from post 78, they clearly state their cost does not account for backup generation. Again I will concede, not a problem, keep your wind under 5-10% and I will accept your ballpark 5 cent cost for wind. Crank up the wind capacity and now you have to idle some reserves which destroys winds ability to deliver ballpark 5 cent power, additionally studies for carbon footprint go out the window as well.
|
That's exactly why we don't have a 100% wind based grid. There's pumped hydro, biofuel, and demand side management to deal w/ supply side variability.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duffman
Regarding the German experiment, we don’t know how much overcapacity they had for their small scale, but I bet their bio-gas and hydro capacity together was close to the required capacity.
|
Just like our nat gas overcapacity is close to our required capacity most of the time. We do have greater hydro, so we would probably need less in the way of biogas, not that we couldn't do it. In terms of the optimal layout for the NA it would undoubtedly be different compared to what's optimal for Germany.