In 2010, installations of new solar and wind capacity far outpaced new nuclear plant additions

[jpak]

Net nuclear additions = 3692 MW

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

Wind turbine additions = 35,800 MW

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/02/02/global-wind-capacity-increases-by-22-in-2010-asia-leads-growth/

Solar (grid) additions 13,000 MW

http://www.bradenton.com/2011/02/02/2924596/research-and-markets-solar-photovoltaic.html

that is all

[DCKit]

1. Just because there's more of something doesn't make it better, right?

It'll never work!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[FBaggins]

2. So new construction starts in 2010 had nuclear outpace wind by 50-100%?

Even while nuclear is "fizzling"?

And the expectations for 2011 show fewer new wind plants but more new nuclear starts?

Wow. Thanks!

[jpak]

3. How many of those construction starts are US plants?

F
I
Z
Z
L
E

yup!

[FBaggins]

4. Why does it matter?

How many will there be five years from now?

[jpak]

6. Because that was the "fizzle" I was talking about

yup

[FBaggins]

11. So once again...

... one year after beginning to approve nuclear construction again... we can just "fizzle" before it would even be possible to build a new plant?

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Let's see if I can find some evidence of that fizzling for you.

[jpak]

5. Your math is wrong - new nuclear construction *starts* in 2010 were 14,000 MW

those plants will not be on line for years

2010 wind turbine intallations = 35,000 MW - on-line today

try again

yup

[FBaggins]

7. Ignoring the difference between starts and completion...

... you can spin all you like, but anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that 1MW of wind does not equal 1MW of nuclear.

Adjust for capacity and starts (rather than completions) and you'll realize your error.

[jpak]

9. I'm not spinning anything - a nuclear plant under construction does not produce electricity

New grid connected turbines and PV farms do produce electricity

Let's "adjust" the figures for 2010....

Assuming a nuclear capacity factor of 90%, new nuclear additions in 2010 = 3,232 MW

Assuming a 30% capacity factor for new wind capacity in 2010 = 10,740 MW

Assuming a 15% capacity factor for PV in 2010 = 1950 MW

Total wind + solar = 12,690 MW which is ~3 times greater than actual new nuclear startups in 2010

I win

yup!

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

10. It doesn't?

How conveeeenient for you. The ramp up in nuclear construction (call it a "renaisance" if you prefer) just got started and it takes a few years to complete a plant. Heck... that means that even as nuclear construction dramatically outpaces wind, you've still got at least a few years to say "any new nuclear power in the US? No? I guess it's faltering"

Oops... sorry... you would of course as the nonsensical "yup" at the end.

Let's "adjust" the figures for 2010....

Cleverly trying to "adjust" different numbers than the ones you're trying to disprove (and then adding solar in to boot)? Adjust the ones for new starts and the math works out just about as I said.

[jpak]

12. LOL! numbers don't lie - 35,000 MW and 13,000 MW of wind and solar installed in 2010

are producing more electicity than the 3300 MW of new nuclear capacity that went on-line in 2010.

Those unfinished nuclear plants do not produce electricity.

Oh yeah - while those nucular plants are under construction, global wind turbine capacity will grow to 707,570 MW in four years.

yup!

[FBaggins]

13. Figures don't lie... you're right.

But liars figure (meant in good fun)... And you're playing dishonest games with the numbers. Think there's anyone who can't guess why?

But let's play this one. Compare that new capacity to the new construction begun in 2010. What's the annual growth rate for new nuclear?

[jpak]

14. Ok - let's play. Current global nuclear capacity = 376 GW

Nuclear capacity added in 2010 = 3.5 GW

for an annual growth rate of.......


















less than one percent.

Compared for sustained double digit growth rates for both solar and wind.

yup!

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

15. Are you really that bad at math?

Or were you dodging intentionally?

We're comparing the rate of construction completed this past year to that begun this last year. We can also look at new connections in 2008 compared to 2009 compared to 2010... then we can look at new starts in 2008 compared to 2009 compared to 2010. The conclusion is clear... nuclear is ramping up and ramping up rapidly. It's just barely getting started while wind's biggest years barely compare to what is just the start.

If we're comparing total existing global capacity... wind barely shows up on the screen. You lose either way.

[jpak]

20. My math is correct

yours?

not so much

:D

[FBaggins]

22. Nope.

If you can't convert a word problem into a correct expression, then no... you're math stinks.

The question was: "Compare that new capacity to the new construction begun in 2010. What's the annual growth rate for new nuclear?"

[jpak]

8. ummm.....the forecast for new wind turbine installations in 2011 is 45 GW

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-28/wind-power-turbine-installations-forecast-to-rebound-in-2011-after-slump.html

up from 38 GW in 2010.

make stuff up much?

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

17. An article from October?

Seems pretty recent. Oh... but then we read that it's primarily from China.

Since that article was written, we've also read:

As previously reported, the likely beneficiaries are expected to be alternative energy, energy-efficient technologies, high-end equipment manufacturing, biotechnology, advanced IT, advanced material and alternative-fuel cars.

However, a source told Reuters that the big winners are expected to be nuclear power and high-speed rail projects, both of which the government has deemed critical to meeting its goal of establishing China as an industrial giant by 2015.

The new strategy could see a softening of support for wind and solar energy, particularly after the country's National Development and Reform Commission recently raised concerns that the wind power industry is facing overcapacity.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2023549/china-low-carbon-heart-plan

And... of course... there's that fizzling:

U.S. (wind) installations probably will fall 39 percent this year

[NNadir]

16. Represented PEAK power as energy is a consistent lie by the dangerous fossil fuel

funded so called "renewable industry."

So called renewable energy never reaches peak output in most places, and if it does so, it's for a matter of minutes.

There are very few solar facilities that operate at even 20% of peak rated capacity, as anyone who is familiar with the concept of "night" can tell.

People who don't know about the existance of "night," are probably, at the minimum, high, and at worst, completely out of their minds.

The fact that dogmatic anti-nukes continue to repeat this lie, suggests that they are all, um, liars.

The matter, as has been demonstrated here many times, can be figured out by direct appeal to something called, um, numbers.

Almost any one of the 62 nuclear reactors now under construction can easily exceed the energy output of all the solar facilities on earth.

Have a nice evening.

[Ready4Change]

18. Ok, let's say wind/solar only produce 10% of this statement.

You say there are few that produce 20%, Let's halve that to 10%, to include installations that are more serious slackers.

That comes out to:
Net nuclear additions = 3692 MW
Wind turbine additions = 3,580 MW (was 35,800)
Solar (grid) additions 1,300 MW (was 13,000)

The problem with repeatedly stating that wind/solar have never lived up to their promise, and never will, is that they've never been funded in a way that would ALLOW them to live up to that potential. It's a prophecy that was determined in advance by the established power brokers, ie, coal, gas and, at some points in time, nuclear.

But these numbers indicate that, perhaps, wind/solar are beginning to get a toe hold.

Or maybe not? I wonder what the net additions of coal and gas plants were over the same time period?

[FBaggins]

19. You were right there at the end. It's "not"

The comparison only looks good because "net new" from nuclear involves old plants being decommissioned and the comparatively small number of completions of nuclear plants so early in the "ramp up" that it has been seeing. Just compare the completions to new starts for the last couple years and you can see how rapidly things are ramping up.

And, of course, coal and gas plant construction is significantly larger.

[jpak]

21. It's official - renewables are outpacing stupid nuclear - and the numbers don't lie

yup

:rofl:

[bananas]

23. By an order of magnitude

too bad so many "auto-dildocs" don't understand this.