Since wind turbines operate in average 2200 hours a year it is necessary to install three times as many MW to replace a nuclear unit running 600 hours a year. Thus not economical

By Bryan McHugh | July 13, 2007 8:28 AM

Last year, California discovered the hard way that wind power is not a competitor of nuclear power. During one of the worst heat waves in California history, electricity use was at record levels. Unfortunately, the wind wasn’t blowing and the actual output of the wind turbines was averaging less than 5% of rated capacity. California’s four nuclear reactors were operating at 100% capacity during this heat wave, however.

This isn’t much of a problem when it’s just a convenience issue. If Californians simply had to forego TV and lights, it would have been little more than a nuisance. But unfortunately, this heat wave produced record temperatures (over 100 degrees F) in areas where temperatures are usually much more moderate resulting in the loss of lives.

Any energy generated from wind should be used to offset the peaking power produced by fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil. And nuclear should be used to offset the other main baseload energy: coal.

Wind and nuclear aren’t competitors. They’re two players on the same team.

By Michael Stuart | July 13, 2007 2:42 PM

Wind in California for summer air conditioning is not a good idea. Better would be Concentrated Solar Power which matches the sun and would give a lot of power on the same days that air conditioning is needed. Still expensive, but costs are to come down when enough of them are built. Air is one third of power needed during hot days. wind is better in the midwest.

By Ronald Lindeman | September 17, 2007 3:20 AM