The U.S. wind-power market broke records in 2009, with 9.8 gigawatts (GW) of new projects, bringing U.S. total wind nameplate capacity to 35 GW. On paper, that 35 GW is the equivalent of 35 large coal or nuclear power plants. But in 2009, variable winds meant that wind turbines produced an average of 27 percent of nameplate power (capacity factor) to the electric grid.
Offshore wind farms with better wind should gradually raise that capacity factor to 30 percent by 2020. By comparison, our 104 U.S. nuclear power plants in 2010 have a total nameplate capacity of 100 GW with a capacity factor of 90 percent, providing an effective 90 GW today.
Most forecasts predict continued strong worldwide wind-power growth, especially from offshore, with its more consistent wind. The Department of Energy projects U.S. nameplate wind capacity doubling to near 70 GW in 2020, assuming continued state and federal subsidies and renewable mandates in many states for clean renewable energy. But a new competitive issue is looming for the large offshore wind farms [300+ megawatt (MW) name plate], which are key to the future growth of wind power.
Developing small, modular nuclear reactor
Little noticed recently was a joint venture announcement by two U.S. industry giants: Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), which produces technology for nuclear-powered naval vessels, and Bechtel, one of the world’s largest engineering firms. They intend to complete development of a small modular 125 MW nuclear reactor that could run for four to five years without refueling, like naval power plants.
Its cost to utilities will be a fraction of the cost of those big wind farms. The B&W reactor’s capacity factor would approach 100 percent between refueling cycles, making the unit’s power output equivalent to the large new wind farms, which cost $1 to $2 billion each. In addition, nuclear power is predictable and doesn’t require additional natural gas plant backup. Fifteen U.S. public utilities, including TVA, are participating in this project, and they plan to install the first production units at the end of this decade.
Russia and China are using their nuclear navy experience to develop similar smaller nuclear power plants at a price at or below the B&W unit.
The longer-term problem for future wind-farm growth becomes evident if we review the cost and capability of some of the major offshore wind farms that are coming on stream in 2010 and 2011.
Billed as “the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world,” England’s 300 MW Thanet wind farm covers 13.5 square miles off the coast of Kent. It should be operational in 2010 and provide an effective capacity of about 120 MW at a cost of $1.2 billon. Another UK wind program is Sheringham Shoal, a 315 MW facility whose 88 300-foot-high turbines will cover 12 square miles off the coast of Norfolk. Being built in cooperation with Norway’s Statoil Hydro, Sheringham Shoal has a price tag of $1.7 billon with an effective capacity similar to the Thanet wind farm.
Newly approved Cape Wind project
In the United States, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has just approved the $2 billion Cape Wind farm, which will place 130 turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. The project has a nameplate capacity of 468 MW, but it is projected to deliver on average approximately 36 percent, or 168 MW, of its nameplate rating.
Wind-power generation tends to be lowest in the summer, when winds are weakest and electric demand is at its peak. The developer has testified that Cape Wind summer output will be near 100 MW.
The design of our current fleet of 104 civilian nuclear-power reactors was based in part on Adm. Hyman Rickover’s pioneering research on nuclear power for submarines. Those naval reactors have provided reliable, safe and long-term fuel life in our ships for decades.
The new generation of smaller civilian power reactors has the same Navy parentage. This suggests that radioactive ill winds may blow toward expensive offshore wind projects.
Rolf Westgard is a professional member of the Geological Society of America and American Nuclear Society. He is a guest lecturer on energy subjects for the University of Minnesota College of Continuing Education.
Rolf:
What are your thoughts about Geothermal energy? Is it possible that hot rock Geothermal energy can supply our electrical and heating requirements?
The most significant omission from the United States is that after ten years of off-shore European wind generators, we have no off shore wind and only one in Massachusetts in prospect for the next several years. Flowery speeches aside, we are not that serious about alternative energy which gets much less in tax breaks and subsidies than fossil fuels. Alongside all this short-term thinking and effort to produce massively subsidized wind and nuclear power is it not time for some rational long term thinking.
Taking your questions in order, Richard. Most of the easy geothermal sites are being used. Deep water is salty, so there are corrosion issues. There is more geo potential from pumping waste water down, as in Santa Rosa, CA, but overall not a huge potential from geothermal.
Actually, per BTU produced, the alternatives get much more in subsidies than fossil fuels. Oil breaks are in tax deductions not direct handouts like for wind and solar. The oil and gas industry is the biggest tax paying industry in the US. And except for its important use as a replacement for MTBE, ethanol is basically a scam.
We should continue R&D on alternatives, but not delude ourselves. Besides the Cape Wind boondoggle, there is a big wind farm plan for Lake Erie. Wait till the ice gets a crack at those turbines.
Rolf
Rolf, I think you’ll agree that nuclear is the way forward.
The cost of electricity produced in the new nuclear power stations under construction or recently commissioned in Europe and elsewhere is about 1/3 of the cost of fluctuating electricity from off-shore wind power. The “old” water cooled power plants in Europe, supplying 20 % of Europe´s power consumption, have lived up to all pro-nuke expectations. After 20-25 years of depreciation they produce CO2-free electricity for the rest of their 60 years of life-time at less than half the price of the electricity from gas fired power plants.
IEA confirms in a recent report that nuclear is the winner if allowed to compete in a free market with no other subsidies than equal CO2-taxation applied to all sources of energy. Why not let the market decide how power is to be produced on equal terms for all alternatives in question?
I’m with you, Richard. The total operating cost of nuclear plants, including fuel, is about 2 cents/kwh.
Excel Energy enclosed a handout with its 1Q bills listing all its fuel sources by cost and reliability. Nuclear was the lowest cost and most reliable.
The furor off the Korean Coast has called attention to the flagship of the US/South Korea fleet, the carrier USS George Washington. Those NImitz class carriers are among the biggest ships afloat and they have two nucler reactors, the A4W. They have similar capacity(160MW) and characteristics to B&W reactor in my editorial. A big difference is that their fuel is highly enriched allowing the reactor to run for 30 years and more without refueling.
The B&W fuel is a little higher enriched than the usual 4% U235 and should run for 4-5 years.
North Korea is threatening nuclear response to our navy maneuvers. The navy has many ways to deliver its warheads to North Korea. Those thermonuclear weapons are about the size of the highway cones the DOT puts out at construction sites. Each is several times more powerful than the A-bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII.
Now all you have to do is convince some state to accept the waste from generation. I’m wondering what do England, France and Russia do with nuclear waste. Send it all to Chernobyl?
The French reprocess spent fuel at La Hague. About 95% goes back into new fuel and the other 5% is vitrifed into glass cylinders. That ‘waste’ from 58 reactors is stored below the floor in one large room at LaHague.The other countries use deep pools and casks as we do. Some are beginning to explore reprocessing as it simplifies the storage issue.
We could use Yucca Mountain for our casks. The problem there is political, not geologic.