Deja Vu? Compact cars? Japan then the "copy cat" US? Hybrid cars...Japan then the US.

What gets me is the fact that our industrial Barons aren't stupid......just greedy. They have to see that the trend is turning "Greener" at least. And they have to know that they have always been behind the power curve (no pun intended :)).

"Interestingly, the cited MW addition rate equates to the output of one or two new nukes per year."

While I like the sentiment of this statement, and the post in general, I'm going to have to point out that this isn't exactly true. While the cited MW addition rate equates to the capacity of one or two new nukes per year, the output of ~2,000 MW of PVs is hardly equivalent to the output of ~2,000 MW of nuclear power.

This is a common mistake when discussing intermittent power resources (like wind and solar) versus baseload generating sources like nuclear, coal or natural gas. The 'capacity factor' - i.e. the percentage of the nameplate capacity of a power plant that will actually be produced at any given time (i.e. on average) - is only 20-40% for wind and PV (depending on the location), while its upwards of 90+% for nukes. A good rule of thumb for comparing wind and solar capacities to traditional baseload generating resources is to divide the nameplate capacity of the PV or wind farm by 3 (i.e. assume a capacity factor of 33%).

Using that rule of thumb then, the ~2,000 MW of PV capacity is actually only equivelent to ~666 MW of nuclear (or coal, or natural gas) power. Now, that's nothing shabby and is certainly worth applauding. The point of the article still stands. I just wanted to clear up a common mistake.

Cheers...
=== author's response follows =====
Absoluely correct and a noteworthy comment. Here's a different point of view on this matter. I'll admit it's completely off the engineering reservation but let's see if we can have it lead us to a consensus point.

Take the design life of nuclear plant, which is likely going to be something like 50 years before a major refurbishment is needed. Now re-do the capacity factor calculation for that period, but this time imake an incremental adjustment for the full life cycle of design, build,operate, and decomission. I'd suggest that the nuclear plant takes 6 to 12 years to design, site, and construct. Let's pick the low end (6 year) number for starters and subtract from it the 2 years time needed to design, site, construct a huge wind farm or mount a complete SPV system on a large number of existing buildings to acheive the same nameplate capacity. The difference is 4 years. Hold that one for second.

Now add in the extra time needed for eventual decommissioning of the nuclear plant and a portion of the waste deposition effort. We don't have much to go on here but I'll suggest a similar delta of an extra 6 years for a nuclear plant.

Very conservatively then, the additional time spent "not generating" during the full life cycle is at least 10 years (an invisible fifth of the stated operating life). My argument is that the nuclear industry hides this prespective in using non-life cycle capacity factors to state its superiority compared to renewables. Although I am not qualified to make the comparison quantitatively, my assumption would be that, if done by a third party, that under a full life cycle comparison, renewables would come out on a par if not better.

We all know that we'll be needing plenty more coal and nuclear plants to meet base demand when the sun is not shining. It's just aggravating to see apples and oranges comparisions instead of viewing nulcear and renewable generation technologies as highly completmentary sources of electricity.

Looking forward to other points of view on this.

actaullly it said:
"Interestingly, the cited MW addition rate equates to the output of one or two new nuks per year."

yes ..'nuks' give em one more and japan would have their own three stooges nuknuknuk!

(four if get Shemp)

It's just aggravating to see apples and oranges comparisions instead of viewing nulcear and renewable generation technologies as highly completmentary sources of electricity.

Amen... IMO it's these types of ideas that need to be understood by the public. Too much time is spent pitting methods against each other, or at least that is what I see in the media.

I don't know if this counts as ironic or not but I've seen a solar powered gas station in Japan.

To the Nuke Activists:
The 1980s witnessed a virtual worldwide collapse of orders for new nuclear power plants. From 1970-80 there were frequent technical mishaps, serious accidents, huge cost escalations and a rapid decline in public acceceptance of nuclear power. Since 1987, many European countries have abandoned the use of nuclear energy. Austria, Sweden, and Italy voted to oppose or phase out nuclear while Ireland prevented a nuclear program there. Poland stopped the construction of a nuclear plant. Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden decided not to build nuclear plants and intend to phase them out. Germany has agreed to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2020. Switzerland has a moratorium on construction of nuclear power for 10 years. In mid-1980s-1990s, the Three-mile Island, Chernobyl and Monju breeder reactor nuclear incidents led the "death knell" of the nuclear industry. For the past 25 years, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. Of the 22 nuclear power plants in the U.S., 16 are scheduled for dismantiling in the next 12 years. These "aging dinosaurs" are costing the ratepayers $ billions to dismantle them.
The reason for the collapse of nuclear power systems include:
- safety problems;
- inability to dispose of nuclear waste;
- potential uncontrolled proliferation of fissile
material in the hands of terrorists;
- the ROI is far too long for investors.

Controlled nuclear fusion, i.e., hydrogen fusion is also not an option. In 1950, Dr Teller theorized the existence of nuclear fusion. However, even with Government funding over the past 40 years, there has not been any demonstrated sustainable nuclear fusion power. The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy is scaling back all funding for nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion R&D is waiting on advances in superconducting magnets and new alloys for high temperature containment. Both of these are large technical obstacles. Even with massive Government funding, it is not expected to overcome these problems before 2060. Thus, nuclear fusion is not an option for our needs to end global warming.
SEE: www.hydrogennow.org; www.energypulse.net
http://aires.ucsd.edu/FPA/ARC04?fpn04-17.shtml
email to author from DOE Office of Nucler Fusion