World's Largest Wind Farm in Wyoming to Be Equipped with 1000 Wind Turbines

[PamW]

11. Numerous Scientific ERRORS!!

Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I didn't "forget" anything. We were doing the calculation of build cost and not the whole life cycle costs of the plant. The costs associated with fuel are less than 1% of the cost of operating the plant; the major costs for nuclear are capital costs. The same with fuel disposal and decommissioning.

We see again that you are NOT a SCIENTIST. You present the 30% figure ( closer to 40% ) as if it is something unique to nuclear power. How typical. The reason for that efficiency is a UNIVERSAL Law of Physics called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it doesn't just apply to nuclear power plants.

Evidently you don't know that there is another Law of Physics that applies to wind turbines
called "Betz's Law":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law

According to Betz' Law a wind turnbine can NEVER be more efficient than 59.3% Only a ducted turbine, and not a free air turbine comes anywhere CLOSE to the 59% limit.

That's a maximum. If the wind is not blowing then a wind turbine is capped at 0%.

When there's no wind, people will be GLAD to have that 40% efficient nuclear power plant supplying them with power when the wind turbines are providing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I find it really funny that renewables proponents carp about efficiency limits, when they are at the mercy of Mother Nature. If Mother Nature is not offering any energy because it is nightime, or cloudy, or the wind isn't blowing or the tide is out.....whatever; when Mother Nature is offering [b ]NOTHING then a renewable energy project is limited to getting PRECISELY NOTHING.

I LOVE the RANK DISHONESTY of the wind proponents talking about 100% availability. Yes - when there is nothing wrong with the turbine but the wind isn't blowing, the wind proponents chalk that up to 100% availability.

BIG DEAL - the fact that your wind turbine is "available" to do work if the wind was blowing doesn't do BEANS at providing what the public needs which is power.

The people can be without power because the wind isn't blowing, but the self-righteous wind proponent proudly proclaims that as 100% availability.

Just wait till the public realizes that they can be WITHOUT POWER, and the wind proponents "think" that they are batting 1.000 because they are "available".

Sorry, but just being "available" is NOT going to cut it with the pubic. They want the power to be delivered.

Being "available", doesn't feed the bulldog!!!

Another basic tenet of Physics that you are evidently unaware of is that the power of the turbine goes as the 3-rd power of the wind speed. If the wind speed is cut in half; you have half the mass of air going through the turbine. However, since the kinetic energy per unit mass of the air goes like the SQUARE of the speed ( elementary physics ), then the energy per mass goes down by a factor of 4, and therefore the reduction by 2 of the mass flow rate, and reduction by 4 of the energy per mass; gives you a drop by a factor of 8. So when the wind speed drops by (1/2), the power drops by (1/2)^3 = (1/8).

Even on the best days, your wind turbines are not getting 100% of their max rated wind speed.

Again, when the public realizes that they can be getting NOTHING while the wind proponents count that as batting 1.000 because they are "available", then the public will realize they don't want much of that.

PamW