Global 2009 PV installations up +7.3 GW, 2009 global wind +37.5 GW, 2009 net nuclear -1.4 GW

[jpak]

2009 PV stats....

http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=5220

2009 wind power stats....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/02/global-wind-installations-boom-up-31-in-2009

2009 nuclear stats...

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

The pronuclear crowd wants you to believe that renewables cannot produce power at industrial scales.

The facts speak for themselves.

Solar will save us.

the end

:D

[malakai2]

1. Soooo....

What proportion of global electrical demand was met by solar, wind, and nuclear, respectively? Oh, and coal, don't forget coal.

[jpak]

2. Sooo.....the other lame anti-renewable red herring argument shows its dumb ass.

It goes something like this - solar, wind and geothermal energy production currently accounts for only X% of global energy demand.

Therefore renewables can NEVER increase their global market share to XX%.

That is a demonstrably stupid argument to make.

Demonstrably stupid.

U.S. Renewable Energy Exceeds Nuclear Power

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/30/us-renewable-energy-exceeds-nuclear-power/

Two new reports reveal that the renewable energy industry continues to grow in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest report, renewable energy accounted for 11.1 percent of U.S. production in April 2009, exceeding nuclear power. Contributing to the increase is the U.S. wind energy industry’s installation of 1,210 megawatts (MW) of new power capacity in the second quarter of 2009, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

With the additional 1,210 MW of new power, the total capacity added this year is just over 4,000 MW, according to the AWEA’s second quarter market report. This amount is larger than the 2,900 MW added in the first six months of 2008.

Despite the installation growth, AWEA said it is seeing a reduced number of orders and lower level of activity in manufacturing of wind turbines and their components. According to the report, many existing supply chain companies have stopped hiring or have furloughed employees due to the slowdown in contracts for wind turbines.

During the second quarter, the U.S. wind energy industry installed a total of 1,210 MW in 10 states, enough to power the equivalent of about 350,000 homes, reports AWEA. These new installations bring the total U.S. wind power generating capacity to 29,440 MW, according to the report. The U.S. wind power generating fleet now offsets an average of 54 million tons of carbon annually, reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2 percent or the equivalent of taking 9 million cars off the road, said AWEA.

<more>

Global wind, solar capacity is growing exponentailly each year and installations/production/etc. doubles every few years.

Solar will save us.

the end

yup.

:D

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Right you are. Renewables CAN dominate the energy market.

And we're still waiting for it.

When it happens, you let us know, mmkay?

--d!

[jpak]

8. Here in Maine, renewables account for 50% of electricity production, not counting the new wind farms

that came on-line this year.

As Maine goes, etc.

Oh yeah - renewable energy passed nuclear in the US last yeaar...

:rofl:

[kristopher]

9. Show us even one analysis that predicts nuclear as anything but a marginal player

AT BEST nuclear is waging a campaign to just get a little bitty slice of the pie. It isn't a case where the justifications for nuclear are huge and accepted by ANYONE (ex: even the MIT study's premise is approximately "if only nuclear can do... then it might be possible to build a few") it is a case where nuclear proponents are using every dishonest argument in the book to keep from being rolled over by renewable energy sources.

So please, one detailed analysis that says nuclear *is* going to be the primary means of meeting our energy security and climate change needs.

Just one.

[joshcryer]

11. There are two analysis results, one is "not happening" and the other is "wait and see."

You go to sites like World Nuclear and they are having a very wait and see attitude.

Fortunately, like AGW, it is a testable assertion. If nuclear can work it will, if it can't it won't. If it does work then some progressives (few on this forum) may have been on the wrong side of the argument.

[kristopher]

12. So we go to the industry sales site and the BEST case is

... spend a half trillion $$ and find out if it works or not?

So I guess the answer to the question is "there are NO studies showing that nuclear is going to be the bulk solution to climate change."

None.

Zero.

Zip.

Yet we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "wait and see".

That sounds like a really piss poor idea.

[joshcryer]

22. Uh, if the answer is "it's viable" then the "half a trillion" is misleading.

If not, then nothing is lost because we spent money trying to develop a low carbon energy source.

[joshcryer]

23. Either way, it's happening, so unless you think derisive forum posts are relevant...

...I suggest you tone it down.

[Statistical]

26. Where do you get half a trillion from? Reactors are $6B to $8B.

After the first half dozen we will have a good idea if they can be built on budget and on time.

The operation side of reactors has been incredibly well run with operation costs at less than 2 cents per kWh.

So if first 6 or 7 reactors are built on time then we will build more. If they aren't then we won't. Pretty simple.

"Cost" would be $40B - $50B however that isn't what is lost. Even is overpriced (your claim not mine) the reactors still have some value. They produce power thus the amount lost (overpaid vs say wind) is a fraction of total cost. At best the experiment has a loss of couple billion.

A couple billion extra wind isn't going to save the planet. Public non-profit utilities are interested in nuclear. They are interested because their research shows it is the cheapest form of power. Maybe they ARE wrong however we are going to find out one way or another. Reactors will be built in this country.

[kristopher]

27. Public non-profits run by Nuclear Energy Institute Board Members, you mean?

Like the fellow at TVA?

The reason that "public non-profit utilities are interested in nuclear" is that they are rate regulated entities that have the ability to pass cost over-runs on to the ratepayers by adding to the rate base.

Your 40-50 billion is another radiation induced fantasy.

[NNadir]

3. The number of "renewables will save us" advocates who can tell the difference between peak power...

and energy remains what it has been for the last 8 years of wishful thinking by, um, "renewables will save us" advocates: ZERO.

Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

We see from the attached figures that the wind and solar energy can't even keep up with the growth of the gas industry, which of course, the wind and solar advertising is designed to greenwash.

Every year when more and more toxic low energy density distributed energy is junk, the only real effect is to create redundancies, make the world safe for the true owners of the "renewables will save us" advertising, gas and oil companies, and cause more dangerous fossil fuel waste to be dumped.

If solar and wind were going to save us, with all the mindless cheering going on, they would have done so decades ago.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ready4Change]

18. Would you rather we not have this added 44.8 GWs at all?

I'll grant you that it's not much compared to our total power needs, even though it sounds like a lot in isolation. However, it is still 44.8 that is NOT being produced by coal/gas.

[NNadir]

19. Bull. When a combined cycle dangerous gas generator or a filthy coal plant

is allowed to cool, all of the energy is wasted. When you restart those plants, you need to invest more lost energy in reheating the water.

The wind and solar industry do not produce significant energy, and years of bull here and elsewhere have not changed this fact.

Both industries are here to entrench the dangerous natural gas industry, with no regard to where to put dangerous fossil fuel waste.

They're a huge waste of money in a time of scarce resources.

[bananas]

5. Only coal shills would unrec this.

I gave it a rec - it went from 0 to 0 recs.
I saw it at two recs.
Now it's at one rec.

[jpak]

6. yup - or shills of the fictitious fraudulent made-up New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor

:D

[joshcryer]

10. All disruptive and misleading posts deserve an unrec.

[jpak]

13. I can understand the "disruptive" part (rain on the pro-nuke parade - waah) but what was misleading?

clue

((((nothing))))

In 2009, wind and PV ADDED +44.8 GIGAWATTS of NEW nameplate capacity.

Global nuclear capacity DECLINED by -1.4 GIGAWATTS

really big positive numbers for renewables and really big negative numbers for stupid nuclear

Now

Do you want to talk about capacity factors - really?

Let's use the the pronucular numbers: 15% for PV and 30% for wind.

Using pronuclear numbers, PV added 1.1 GW in 2009 = the equivalent of a large 1000 MW nuclear reactor, whereas wind added he equivalent of 11.25 large nuclear reactors.

Combined, PV and wind added the equivalent of 12.35 new 1000 MW nuclear power plants in 2009.

Nuclear's negative number in 2009 is still a negative number...

mathematics!

so sorry

solar will save us

no nucular renaissance for you

:rofl:

[Statistical]

14. One year doesn't make a trend. You sound like a climate denalist.

While capacity did decline in 2009 nuclear still represents a magnitude more power than wind/solar. Even if nuclear continued to decline it would take decades for wind/solar to achieve that level of capacity.

Also capacity isn't what matters. Generation is what matters. PV solar average capacity factor is slightly higher at 17%. Wind global average capacity factor is lower at 26%.

So even if "someday" wind & solar combined had capacity equal to nuclear reactors they would still output about about 1/3rd to 1/4th the energy nuclear reactors provide (depending on wind/solar split).

There is nothing wrong with wind and solar. Only one pro-nuclear person on the board constantly trashed them. We need all forms of emission free energy. What matters is total emission free energy. IF the roughly 400GW declined to 0 that is a whole of 400GW that needs to be replaced just to get us back to where we are today.


Nuclear reactors currently under construction with completion in next 4 years.

2010 Completion (7.6 GW)
India, NPCIL Kaiga 4 PHWR 202MW
India, NPCIL Rawatbhata 6 PHWR 202MW
Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1 PWR 950MW
Russia, Energoatom Rostov 2 PWR 950MW
India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
Canada, Bruce Power Bruce A1 PHWR 769MW
Canada, Bruce Power Bruce A2 PHWR 769MW
Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 1 PWR 1000MW
China, CGNPC Lingao II-2 PWR 1080MW
Argentina, CNEA Atucha 2 PHWR 692MW

2011 Completion (8.0 GW)
India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950
India, NPCIL Kalpakkam FBR 470
Taiwan Power Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300
Russia, Energoatom Kalinin 4 PWR 950
Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 2 PWR 1000
China, CNNC Qinshan 4-1 PWR 650
China, CGNPC Lingao 2-1 PWR 1080
Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 2 PWR 300
Japan, Chugoku Shimane 3 PWR 1375

2012 Completion (9.9 GW)
Finland, TVO Olkiluoto 3 PWR 1600
China, CNNC Qinshan 4-2 PWR 650
Taiwan Power Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300
Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 1 PWR 1000
France, EdF Flamanville 3 PWR 1630
Russia, Energoatom Vilyuchinsk PWRx2 70
Russia, Energoatom Novovoronezh II-1 PWR 1070
Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 PWR 440
China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 1 PWR 1080
China, CGNPC Ningde 1 PWR 1080

2013 Completion (13.1 GW)
China, CNNC Sanmen 1 PWR 1100
China, CGNPC Ningde 2 PWR 1080
Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 1000
USA, TVA Watts Bar 2 PWR 1180
Russia, Energoatom Leningrad II-1 PWR 1070
Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 3 PWR 1350
China, CGNPC Yangjiang 1 PWR 1080
China, CGNPC Taishan 1 PWR 1700
China, CNNC Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1000
China, CNNC Fuqing 1 PWR 1000
China , CGNPC Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1080
Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 PWR 440

[jpak]

15. And how many reactors will be retired in each of these years? Forgot that term of the equation- huh

But alas, renewable additions will ***surpass*** new nuclear additions in each of those years - even if you account for capacity factors.

mathematics!

solar will save us

:rofl:

[Statistical]

16. Nuclear + Solar + Wind + Efficiency will save us.

If nuclear retired (no new construction, no upgrades, no lifetime extensions) that would be a loss of about 400GW of capacity (equivalent to 1500GW of wind or 2500GW of solar) over next 30 years.

We would see a net reduction in emission free energy. To someone like me that is the only metric that matters. How much NET emission free energy increased both in nominal amounts and in % of generation.


Of course purist like yourself really wouldn't give a shit because none of this has anything to do with the planet and everything to do with cheerleading.

[jpak]

17. You cut me to the quick :( Bcuz I actually DO gve a flying fuck about the rat's ass

rah rah ciss boom bah!!111

:D

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Psst: You forgot Hydro

[Confusious]

21. Ehh, hydro is at max in this country

We dammed up all the rivers during the 30's.

we're not getting any more out of that goose.

[Statistical]

25. Yeah I did forget Hydro however Hydro won't be expanding in this country.

At best it will remain flat. Global there will be slight expansion of Hydro over the coming decades but we will be hitting the cap pretty soon.

Hydro is a great resource. It is dispatchable, can follow demand, and with pump-hydro can pull excess power from the grid.

The only problem is that we (and most of first world) have pretty much hit "peak hydro".

Still it was just an accidental omission thanks for including it.

[joshcryer]

24. If your OP did include that POV then it would not have been misleading.

Continue on your derisive ways, I'll unrec all derisive, disruptive, and misleading posts.