Cheap Wind and its Value To Humankind
In the United States, there are now 50,000 wind turbines, generating 70 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, enough to power 19 million homes. The cost of wind-generated electricity is down 66% since 2009. It is now nearly 5% of American electricity, up from 1 percent in 2007. In Iowa, wind power accounts for over 25% of electricity generation.
While this comes as good news to most people with lungs, the pro-nuke/anti-renewables crowd somehow find it disgruntling, and seek to invalidate it. One writes: I have been asked to respond to the article below by a thoughtful green. This article runs counter to what I believe to be true in many ways, but I need assistance, so please Email your comments to this list.
I respond with the comments of my colleague Glenn Doty:
Yes, nuclear power is a critical portion of the future power mix…
But to discount renewable energy is a fool’s gambit. Wind is less than 1/3rd the cost, on a LCOE (levelized cost of energy) basis, than the most optimistic assessments for current technology nuclear power. I couldn’t care less if it’s less energy dense… that’s baked into the cost, and it’s still less. Will thorium cycles allow cheaper energy? I would bet against that.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, but solar can be generated at the point of demand, so it needs to compete with the delivered price, not the generation price. As of now, solar wins, but that’s only because of numerous subsidies… without the subsidies, in a decade…? Who knows? Both energy sources will be needed, so both should be invested in and built out.
Without thorium cycles, however, nuclear power is a few decades-a long luxury before fuel costs begin to become prohibitive.. and again, I have my doubts that thorium cycle plants will be delivering electrical power for at least 2 decades.
I also have my doubts that a fusion plant may be operational and delivering consumer energy before the death of my children (who have not yet been conceived).
But wind and solar, and soon likely geothermal… are all cost viable in certain regions of the U.S. TODAY… we don’t have to wait for R&D, nor do we have to wait for NRC approval, nor do we have to struggle to overcome NIMBYism for a novel nuclear reactor… etc.. We can just keep building wind farms and solar panels, and slowly change the world while waiting for the magic option that the (people) in your forum – along with many other reasonable and mature nuclear enthusiasts (myself included) believe will move the ball more quickly.
That’s odd…
I remember being far less… polite… when I quickly wrote out that response.
😉
Another way to put it for the benefit of the [people] on your forum:
From 2010 to 2014, investment in nuclear power resulted in a net change of ~9.8 TWh of generated energy. That is, in 2014 nuclear power generated 9.8 TWh LESS energy than it did in 2010… meaning coal power generated 9.8 TWh MORE due to the changes in capacity from nuclear power.
In that same time frame, wind power generated 87 TWh MORE electricity per year, meaning that every year due to the investment in wind energy coal is generating 87 TWh/year less than it was four years before.
Clearly that would be unfair… because nuclear is the long-range moonshot goal and wind power is the investment that is capable of helping NOW to reduce toxic emissions… But the [people] on your forum should be able to detect the irony.
🙂
Ha! Yes, you were less polite, which is why I used [people] in brackets like you did in your comment. LOL.