Both Sendai reactors (unit 1 and unit 2) have now been restarted. Sendai unit 1 has just started providing electricity to the grid. (August 14th)
So how will this affect Japans Carbon Dioxide emissions? And how would renewables (say wind) compare?
When nuclear was shut down in Japan it was replaced with an unholy mix of coal and gas (with about 7% oil) A rough estimate of the amount of Carbon Dioxide from the generation that replaced nuclear would be around 750Kg of Carbon Dioxide for every MegaWatt Hour of energy generated (750KG/MWh)
Sendai, during its last year of full operation generated just short of 13TWh of electricity (13000 GigaWatt Hours) So today, the first day of generation, Sendai unit one (half of the power plant) will have generated around 18GWh of energy. This will displace energy that would have otherwise been generated from the coal/gas/oil mix
So a rough estimate of the amount of Carbon Dioxide prevented from being dumped into the atmosphere by this single day of generation from half a nuclear power plant amounts to 18000 x 750 = 13.5 million Kg of Carbon Dioxide or 13500 Tonnes.
A single day of operation from half a nuclear power plant prevents the emission of 13500 Tonnes of carbon Dioxide.
Amazing isn't it?
How would a renewables option compare?
An 150m high 2MW wind turbine with a typical 25% capacity factor would intermittently produce 12MWh in a day. Or using same units as Sendai - 0.012GWh
So to match the single day output from half of Sendai nuclear power plant (and ignoring the problems of intermittency) would would need 1500 turbines.
Or to put it another way, for a single turbine to match a single days energy generation from half of Sendai nuclear power plant would take that turbine four years, one month and nine days.
Don't figures like that just knock you out?
Showing posts with label power generation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power generation. Show all posts
Pandora's Promise
"What if what you have been thinking all this time - is wrong?"
This film was made by Robert Stone. He is a multi-award-winning, Oscar-nominated and Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker. (Biography HERE ) His film, Pandoras Promise has received enormous accolades. In preview showings it has caused a storm. Indulge me. Watch the trailer.
The film relates to a journey of discovery made by Stone and a number of very prominent and very famous environmentalists. That the journey they question their preconceptions about nuclear power.
It is, I am told not only an eye opener but is a powerful moving and ground breaking expose against the ignorance and pseudo science that surrounds the environmental lobby today.
If you want to read a fistful of reviews go to the bottom of This Link - The unofficial guide to Pandoras Promise They are quite enlightening.
Fiddling Wind Turbine Images
I had to smile when I read a comment from a local windy on one of my posts accusing the local action group (DART) of inflating turbine image size on one of their flyers. ( Comment 5 on this post )
Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]
Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .
As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.
Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.
The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.
There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.
Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.
I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.
So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".
You know it makes sense.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]
Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .
As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.
Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.
The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.
There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.
Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.
I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.
So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".
You know it makes sense.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
Wind Power Today in June
I haven't visited the excellent NETA-bmreports site for a while so I thought I'd have a quick look tonight just to see how much the wind power generation has improved by since my last visit.
I hit the enter key with a great deal of excitement, would it be wonderful?
Would it be, well, at least an improvement?
After all it couldn't get much worse than my last analysis during last winter (See Here)
I waited impatiently while Firefox fired up Java. The seconds ticked away then I watched as all those wonderful little applets burst into life.
My God! NETA is undoubted one of the best and most informative sites on the net!
Here is the one I was hoping to see an improvement in:
Sadly, I was disappointed (again).
Today the whole of the wind turbine fleet was running with a capacity factor of just under 8%. But tomorrow it goes up (wait for it) to 13.5% Woo Hoo!
So today that equates to 1/4 or a single average sized power station for the whole wind turbine fleet. Tomorrow that equates to 1/3 of a average sized power station.
Now I might have incurred the wrath of those who think that the odd snapshot like this is not really indicative of the true output.
To an extent that is true.
But I would like to point out that neither is the so-called capacity factor that windies like to quote. Often blindly quoted at 30% , last year it was 22%.
But whatever the value, Capacity factor is no more worthwhile than my single snapshot.
Because of the nature of wind energy, turbines will be running for most of the time well below their capacity factor,.
They only make up for it due to a few days of high wind.
Most of the time the output of a wind turbine will be less than 20%. For 30% of the time it is less than 10%.
What we need is the most likely output not some dodgy average of power generated from a cube law.
So, are we getting value for money out of these things? Is the irreparable damage done to the countryside and peoples lives worth this pitiful level of power generation?
I think not.
p.s. I must do another 3 or 6 month rolling appraisal again soon.
I hit the enter key with a great deal of excitement, would it be wonderful?
Would it be, well, at least an improvement?
After all it couldn't get much worse than my last analysis during last winter (See Here)
I waited impatiently while Firefox fired up Java. The seconds ticked away then I watched as all those wonderful little applets burst into life.
My God! NETA is undoubted one of the best and most informative sites on the net!
Here is the one I was hoping to see an improvement in:
Sadly, I was disappointed (again).
Today the whole of the wind turbine fleet was running with a capacity factor of just under 8%. But tomorrow it goes up (wait for it) to 13.5% Woo Hoo!
So today that equates to 1/4 or a single average sized power station for the whole wind turbine fleet. Tomorrow that equates to 1/3 of a average sized power station.
Now I might have incurred the wrath of those who think that the odd snapshot like this is not really indicative of the true output.
To an extent that is true.
But I would like to point out that neither is the so-called capacity factor that windies like to quote. Often blindly quoted at 30% , last year it was 22%.
But whatever the value, Capacity factor is no more worthwhile than my single snapshot.
Because of the nature of wind energy, turbines will be running for most of the time well below their capacity factor,.
They only make up for it due to a few days of high wind.
Most of the time the output of a wind turbine will be less than 20%. For 30% of the time it is less than 10%.
What we need is the most likely output not some dodgy average of power generated from a cube law.
So, are we getting value for money out of these things? Is the irreparable damage done to the countryside and peoples lives worth this pitiful level of power generation?
I think not.
p.s. I must do another 3 or 6 month rolling appraisal again soon.
Labels:
power generation,
wind,
wind efficiency,
wind power
Wind Turbines: National 3 Months Data
See last post... Here is the raw 3 month NETA data and a tidied version in xls and ods formats
Files Are Here
The four files are attachment on the bottom of the home page.
The first two are the two complete zip files from NETA for the last 3 months power generation output. Downloaded by me tonight.
The other two are cleaned up versions of the CSV file saved in ods and xls formats.
No data has been deleted in the cleaned up xls and ods files, but I have added a header showing which column is which. The only caveat here is that both the Irish interconnector and the "other" generation methods were all zeros so I dont know which is which. But as they are all zero it doesn't really matter.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
Files Are Here
The four files are attachment on the bottom of the home page.
The first two are the two complete zip files from NETA for the last 3 months power generation output. Downloaded by me tonight.
The other two are cleaned up versions of the CSV file saved in ods and xls formats.
No data has been deleted in the cleaned up xls and ods files, but I have added a header showing which column is which. The only caveat here is that both the Irish interconnector and the "other" generation methods were all zeros so I dont know which is which. But as they are all zero it doesn't really matter.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
Labels:
NETA,
power generation,
wind power,
wind turbines
Wind Power: Three Months Data
I am following a very interesting thread on the IET (formerly IEE) website regarding the sheer uselessness of windpower during the cold snap we have just had. (See Here) It makes interesting reading.
While I have been following the excellent Neta Website myself for a few weeks, I did not realise that they actually provide a full 3 month data set for all the various methods of power generation. This displays actual outputs on a half hourly basis. (Thanks to "Ipayyoursalary" on the IET thread for pointing this out)
I have one minor criticism of this data. While the XML data set looks good, the potentially more immediately useable CSV data lacks headers and you have to go digging through the XML equivalent to figure out what is what.
But even so, this is an absolute gold mine. Or, if you are a greedy wind farm developer, possibly a nest of vipers.
Congratulations must be given to those who run the Neta site, not only for producing this data set, but also for coherently displaying the fluctuations and methodology of the country's power generation.
I downloaded the CSV and XML data sets tonight and have had a first hack at simply tidying up the CSV file so people can use it in Excel or Calc. I'll be having a crack at some analysis myself in the next few days but I know some of the folk who read this blog can do things with a spreadsheet that would make my ears bleed.
I will try and figure out a way of getting this file available for general download and will raise another post when I have sussed it out.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
While I have been following the excellent Neta Website myself for a few weeks, I did not realise that they actually provide a full 3 month data set for all the various methods of power generation. This displays actual outputs on a half hourly basis. (Thanks to "Ipayyoursalary" on the IET thread for pointing this out)
I have one minor criticism of this data. While the XML data set looks good, the potentially more immediately useable CSV data lacks headers and you have to go digging through the XML equivalent to figure out what is what.
But even so, this is an absolute gold mine. Or, if you are a greedy wind farm developer, possibly a nest of vipers.
Congratulations must be given to those who run the Neta site, not only for producing this data set, but also for coherently displaying the fluctuations and methodology of the country's power generation.
I downloaded the CSV and XML data sets tonight and have had a first hack at simply tidying up the CSV file so people can use it in Excel or Calc. I'll be having a crack at some analysis myself in the next few days but I know some of the folk who read this blog can do things with a spreadsheet that would make my ears bleed.
I will try and figure out a way of getting this file available for general download and will raise another post when I have sussed it out.
Love & Kisses
Billothewisp
Labels:
NETA,
power generation,
wind turbines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)