To replace the electrical production of a nuclear power station the size of M1/4hleberg, which represents only 10% of the power of our nuclear park, over 700 wind turbines are required.
If we use wind turbines with a 2 MW output, which is the Swiss standard, we’ll need 190 turbines to match the output of the M1/4hleberg power plant (373 MW). However, capacity isn’t everything; you must also create! M1/4hleberg is a power station that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week (apart from maintenance shutdowns, for about four weeks a year). A wind turbine runs for 75% of the time on average, but at variable speeds and thus capacities depending on the wind conditions. As a result, it only produces around a quarter of its full capability in full power equivalent. To equal the electricity produced by a traditional power plant, the installed capacity of a wind turbine must be multiplied by four. To replace a plant like M1/4hleberg, it will take not 190, but 190 x 4 = 760 wind turbines. When the formula is adjusted to account for any nuclear power plant’s maintenance downtime, it only takes 700 wind turbines to replace M1/4hleberg’s electricity production.
The entire area required if these wind turbines were erected in the same park would be around 150 km2, which is roughly the same as the total area of the lakes of Lugano (49 km2), Thun (48 km2), and Biel/Bienne (48 km2) (40 km2). It should be noted, however, that the ground surface beneath a wind turbine is still available for certain activities, including agriculture.
However, comparing nuclear and wind power just on the basis of their production capacities would be very simplistic. Other unique characteristics, such as their production profile, must be considered. Nuclear power provides “ribbon energy,” which is electricity that is produced constantly and at nearly constant power, whereas wind power is produced occasionally (when the wind blows). The role of the grid operator, who must constantly balance production and demand for power, is made more difficult by this intermittency. It will need to include new skills in precision weather forecasting in order to effectively anticipate the future productivity of its wind farm.
It’s worth noting that wind power isn’t the only source of unpredictability. Nuclear power is also vulnerable to unplanned outages, which can have far more serious repercussions due to its high output capacity and very long restart time. In addition to probable emergency shutdowns, power plants may be compelled to drastically cut their output during heat waves if they are unable to draw enough water from rivers to cool them while still adhering to environmental regulations to safeguard aquatic life. In 2003, a similar crisis occurred in France, causing our neighbor to curtail exports in order to balance its own network.
How many wind turbines does it take to power a nuclear reactor?
It’s an ancient saying that a growing market can accommodate all players, including newcomers. The opposite is currently happening in the US power market, with more competition for static demand leading to headlines like this one from earlier this week: “Nuclear Plants’ Lifeline Threatens Wind and Solar Power.”
The United States is awash with energy, at least in terms of resources that can be converted into power.
The premise of that headline is paradoxical, given that renewables have relied on government mandates and incentives to drive their spectacular growth for more than a decade. They have made things more difficult for conventional generating technologies like coal and nuclear power, as well as lately cheap natural gas. In the case of coal, this was a foreseen and even purposeful effect, but in the case of nuclear power, it was largely unintended.
Inevitable fight
Much like the recession’s impact on gasoline demand produced a crisis for biofuel quotas, sluggish electricity demand has accelerated and deepened the inevitable battle for market share and the subsequent reorganization of generating capacity. Due to a poor economy and intensive energy efficiency efforts, US power consumption has been practically unchanged since the financial crisis of 2008-9. For all producers, more generation servicing the same demand equals lower pricing and fewer annual hours of operation for the least competitive.
At the same time, abundant, low-cost natural gas from booming shale production has made gas-fired turbines a direct rival in the 24/7 “baseload” segment once dominated by coal and nuclear power, as well as the go-to backup source for integrating additional renewables onto the grid.
Less nuclear power does not automatically imply more renewable energy. More gas or coal-fired power is also a possibility.
The United States is awash with energy, at least in terms of resources that can be converted into power. The sole remaining justification for the large subsidies that wind and power continue to get (nearly $3 billion budgeted for wind alone in 2017) is environmental: primarily, concerns about climate change and the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with it.
That’s why, in response to the recent wave of nuclear power plant retirements, some states are considering offering some type of financial assistance to existing plants. Nuclear power is not just the third-biggest source of electricity in the United States; it is also by far the largest producer of zero-emission energy, with 3.5 times the production of wind and 22 times that of solar in 2016. A significant reduction in nuclear power is just incompatible with the objective to reduce US emissions. Environmental organizations such as EDF have come to similar findings.
When it comes to determining what could replace nuclear, the scale of the reactor is even more important. For example, the annual energy production of a single conventional nuclear reactor is comparable to the output of nearly 2,000 wind turbines of 2 megawatts (MW) each (about half of the 8,203 MW of new US wind installations last year). An infographic I saw on Twitter helps me visualize this:
I understand why utilities and others who are actively investing in wind and solar power believe that providing incentives to keep nuclear power stations from retiring prematurely is “bad policy.” After all, we’ve pushed companies to invest in these specific technologies because it’s been easier to obtain an agreement at the federal and state levels to provide incentives for renewables than for all low-emission energy.
Even in states with deregulated power markets, we don’t have anything approximating an equal playing field for electricity generating.
But, as long as we’re supporting renewables in this way, we should acknowledge that nuclear power is just as valuable. The main advantage of renewables is their minimal emissions (including non-greenhouse air pollutants), which is something that nuclear power also has. However, because of their lower energy densities, which necessitate much larger footprints for the same output, and lower reliability, adding a lot more renewables to the energy mix necessitates additional investments in electricity grid modernization and energy storage, as well as new tools like “demand response.” Nuclear power is small and reliable, with a 90 percent availability rate. It also works well with the existing system.
Level playing field
I’m a great fan of markets because of my experience and philosophy, so I’d generally sympathize with the American Petroleum Institute’s position that states shouldn’t prefer nuclear power over gas and other alternatives. Even in states with deregulated power markets, we don’t have anything approximating an equal playing field for electricity generating. Existing federal incentives for wind and solar energy, as well as state Renewable Portfolio Standards, are already heavily skewed in their favor. According to the most recent extension by Congress, these subsidies will be in force until at least 2022. Why are renewables given preferential treatment over nuclear power?
Wind and solar power are important components of the evolving low-emission energy mix, and as their costs fall, we will want more of them, but not at the expense of far larger low-emission energy sources already in place. Less nuclear power does not automatically imply more renewable energy. More gas- or coal-fired power is also on the way. That has been Germany’s experience with the “Energiewende,” or energy transformation.
As long as this is the case, and without comparable incentives for similarly low-emission nuclear facilities, as well as fossil-fuel plants that capture and sequester CO2, we will have an energy mix that is less diverse, less reliable, and emits more CO2 than is necessary in the coming years. That isn’t progress in my opinion.
To replace a power plant, how many wind turbines are required?
As coal plants have been shut down, their capacity factor has decreased, and they now have an average capacity factor of less than 50%. In the case of coal, we’ll use a capacity factor of 50%.
In 2016, 381 coal plants with little under 800 generating units were operational. The average coal plant had a capacity of roughly 720 MW. As a starting point, we’ll use 720 MW of coal capacity.
With a capacity factor of 50%, 720 MW of capacity working 24/7/365 would generate about 3.15 TWh of power per year.
In the United States, the average capacity factor for modern wind turbines is 41.9 percent. The average capacity of new wind turbines in the United States is 2.43 MW.
The first question concerns the number of wind turbines needed to create 3.15 TWh of electricity.
3.15 TWh divided by 2.43 MW capacity divided by 24 hours divided by 365 days divided by 41.9 percent capacity factor equals 353 wind turbines.
As a result, the first response is that little over 350 wind turbines are required to replace a coal-fired power station with 23 producing units. To replace a single generating unit, approximately 120175 wind turbines are required.
So far, everything has gone well. Coal plants, on the other hand, do more than generate power. What other services do they give, and can wind turbines do the same?
Let’s start with CO2, which is the most common greenhouse gas. Coal-fired power plants emit around a ton of CO2 every MWh of output. That means the 3.15 TWh of coal-fired energy created more than 3 megatons of CO2.
Although wind energy does not emit CO2, the entire lifespan of materials, production, distribution, building, operations, and decommissioning now has a CO2 debt that must be divided by the amount of power generated. Wind turbines emit 58.2 kg of CO2e per MWh, according to lifecycle cost assessments. This equates to 0.5 to 0.82 percent of CO2 emissions per MWh of coal.
That means we’d need between 43,000 and 71,000 wind turbines to produce the same amount of CO2.
Using the same generating calculation, wind turbines would generate 385631 TWh to produce the same amount of CO2 as coal.
That really stinks, doesn’t it? So many wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as coal! There’s more, though.
Coal generating also creates 84 kilogram of coal ash per MWh, resulting in a total of 265,000 tons of coal ash each year. Because wind energy does not produce coal ash or anything similar, an endless number of wind turbines would be needed.
Sulphur dioxide, a terrible air pollutant, is produced by coal power at a rate of roughly 2.4 kg per MWh, equating to about 7,540 kg per year. Because wind energy does not emit sulphur dioxide, an endless number of wind turbines would be necessary.
Coal-fired power plants also emit just under a kilogram of nitrous oxide per megawatt-hour (MWh), or around 3,000 tons per year. A limitless number of wind turbines are necessary.
Coal-fired power plants additionally emit around 0.1 kg of particulate matter per MWh, resulting in an additional 315 tons of PM2.5 and PM10 particles clogging lungs. An unlimited number of wind turbines are required once more.
Oh, but there’s still more! Coal produces roughly 13 micrograms of mercury per megawatt-hour (MWh), a hazardous heavy metal and bioaccumulator that causes insanity and organ failure. That means that every year, that coal plant releases around 41 kilogram of mercury into the atmosphere! Unfortunately, yet another example where wind turbines do not emit mercury, necessitating the installation of an infinite number of them. Coal-fired power plants emit 50% of all mercury emissions each year, which is a significant loss.
Last but not least, there’s background radiation. The majority of human-caused radiation that the ordinary person is exposed to comes from coal emissions, which are created when carbon-rich dirt containing trace radioactive components is burned. Because wind turbines emit no radiation, an endless number is necessary.
All of this adds up to around 78 deaths per year from air pollution and accidents at that one coal plant, based on a rate of 24.6 deaths per TWh. Wind energy, on the other hand, has roughly 0.04 deaths per TWh, which is 615 times lower. By this metric, coal is once again the clear leader. To kill the same number of people each year, it would need around 217,000 wind turbines.
When you consider how many wind turbines are required to replace the things we get for free from coal, it’s truly remarkable that anyone can imagine replacing coal with wind energy.
To replace a nuclear power plant, how many solar panels do I need?
THE FOOTPRINT IS SHORT. To put that into perspective, more than 3 million solar panels or more than 430 wind turbines would be required to produce the same amount of energy as a typical commercial reactor (capacity factor not included).
Can wind energy take the place of nuclear power?
Understanding concepts like capacity, capacity factor, and generation are important in the production of energy. When comparing the generation of intermittent electricity to baseload generated electricity, these three ideas are frequently misunderstood and misused. When describing complex ideas, it can be helpful to utilize a familiar example. As a result, I’ll use the automobile as an analogy because many of us own cars and are familiar with them.
The following is an example of an analogy: Assume there is a car on the market that is extremely eco-friendly. It has incredible mileage! It’s what I refer to as a “super-green” vehicle.
This ultra-green vehicle has the same horsepower as a standard vehicle. It can manage severe hills just like a regular automobile. It has the same performance from 0 to 60 mph. The only difference is that it will only start 25% of the time if you try to start it in the morning, and you can never anticipate which day it will start. It occurs 25% of the time at random.
Would you drive a super-green car to work every day instead of your regular car? To simplify the example, assume that if the car starts on a specific day, it will likewise transport you home at the end of the day. If it doesn’t start on a specific day, no matter how many times you turn the starter key, it won’t start that day.
To the majority of individuals, the answer seems self-evident. Most of us would not be able to keep our jobs for very long if we only turned up to work 25% of the time. So, unfortunately, the super-green car will not be able to take the place of a conventional vehicle. In this example, horsepower is the equivalent of capacity. An intermittent electrical power source with a capacity (or power capability when it is running) of 1000MW will not be able to replace a 1000MW conventional power plant. The power plants are not equal, despite the fact that their capacity are the same. Nonetheless, capacity comparisons are presented frequently, as if this somehow equalizes the power plants. They are not interchangeable.
Others argue that, because the capacity factor is 25% (the automobile operates 25% of the time), you only need four cars to get to work consistently every day. However, this is also untrue. There’s a potential that none of the automobiles will be available on a given day. In fact, if the probability of each car not working is independent of the probability of the other cars not working, this probability can be calculated. It’s 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75, or (0.75)4, or 32 percent. So, if you own four super-green automobiles, there’s a 32 percent chance that none of them will function on any given day. So, with four super-green automobiles, you get to work 68 percent of the time, which is better than 25%, but still far from 100%.
Another issue with utilizing capacity factor as an equalizing parameter is that multiple cars may start at the same moment. The extra cars, on the other hand, are of little use to you in terms of going to work. The demand for getting to work on time each day does not balance out the extra working cars. They’re working at the incorrect hour.
It’s worth noting that in the case of a wind farm, the likelihood of each turbine failing is not random. When the wind stops blowing in one region, it affects all wind turbines in that area. The probability are not distributed in a random manner. As a result, wind farms must be located in separate weather patterns in order to dramatically limit the amount of time that they are unavailable.
Generation is a superior equalizing parameter. When the super-green automobile is in operation, it produces miles that are extremely cost-effective. However, that parameter has its own set of issues. Simply by taking the longer route to work, you can generate more inexpensive miles. Those extra inexpensive miles mean nothing when it comes to arriving to work. Similarly, power generated has no value unless there is a demand for it at the time it is generated. This is due to the fact that electricity has no expiration date. When it is created, it must be consumed.
As a result, when comparing generating costs across intermittent and baseload power sources, the resulting electricity value is assumed to be the same. This is not the case, because electricity generated while demand is uncertain has a different value than electricity generated when demand is guaranteed.
When comparing intermittent and baseload generated electricity, there is no perfect equalization parameter. Capacity is by far the poorest, followed by capacity factor, and generation, which is the best but not ideal.
As a result, intermittently generated electricity cannot be used to replace baseload generation. There’s a risk that none of the super-green cars will be working on a given day, just as there’s a chance that no power will be generated by an intermittent source. As a result, all traditional power sources are still required.
Intermittent power sources, on the other hand, can be beneficial since they help traditional power plants conserve fuel. However, at today’s fuel prices, the economics are usually not favorable. In the automobile scenario, I calculate that if the super-green car gets double the mileage as my regular car, my 20-mile round-trip commute to work will save me around two gallons of petrol per month. At $4 per gallon, you’ll save $8 per month. From an economic standpoint, it is clear that this savings pales in comparison to the hundreds of dollars necessary each month to buy a second automobile. Similarly, I authored an article arguing that, with the exception of Hawaii, where expensive oil is used to generate energy, wind farms cannot be justified economically.
However, it is possible that the use of intermittent power plants can be justified in terms of the environment. Perhaps the environmental benefit of emitting fewer greenhouse gases is worth not burning fossil fuels. In addition, the fossil resource can be conserved for other use, such as the production of polymers. When the baseload generator is nuclear, however, this reasoning falls apart. During operation, nuclear power produces no greenhouse emissions. Because uranium has no other commercial uses, saving it for other purposes is not an option. What would we be saving it for, exactly?
So, in response to the broad question, can wind power take the place of nuclear power? Clearly, the answer is no. There is always some impact in whatever we do, and no technology is perfect. Nuclear power has the potential to supply humanity’s electrical demands for millennia. That is a compelling reason to utilize it rather than a technology that only works intermittently and requires us to keep all of our existing conventional generators.
A nuclear power plant takes up how many acres of land?
Some may argue that this isn’t a fair comparison because wind power is diffuse and fluctuating. Despite this, we frequently hear about a wind turbine being installed that “can produce energy for 300 households” in the news. Due to the scarcity of knowledge, it’s easy to believe that a single turbine will provide that amount of power on a continual basis.
When wind power is compared to the yearly megawatt hour (MWh) output of a nuclear plant, the picture of what wind can power changes considerably. The numbers will not be fully understood unless they are seen.
Wind turbines, sometimes known as wind generators, have become a prominent emblem of carbon-free electricity. Wind and solar power, unlike other renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity or geothermal, create electricity on a variable basis. Because the wind does not constantly blow and the sun does not always shine, a wind turbine’s maximum capacity rating will never be reached for an extended length of time.
The capacity factor is the ratio of power produced to the amount it could produce over a year if it were operating at full capacity. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the average capacity factor for wind power is 25%.
This infographic poster’s feature highlight is the capacity factor. This picture depicts the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24″x36″ banner to highlight how this compares to one nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1154 megawatts (MW). Even if this array of turbines could theoretically run constantly at only 25% of its rated capacity, this is what would be necessary to match the nuclear power plant production.
Over the course of a year, the nuclear power plant can run at least 90% of its capacity factor. In fact, it could possibly run at 100% capacity factor for up to 18 monthssomething that several nuclear power reactors have done. It could power a metropolis of over a million people with the 9,000,000+ MWhs it generates.
Adding more wind turbines to achieve the same goal will not necessarily result in a bigger amount of electric power or even out the flow to a continuous flow. The wind can be slow, non-existent, or even too fast for the turbines to properly operate. As a result, this graph depicts how average wind-power performance may produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power station. Wind’s production, unlike that of a nuclear power plant, is too erratic to power a city. The power production from nuclear and wind generators is integrated across the grid, as it is with most electrical generators, albeit wind as a variable source poses certain issues for grid operators.
On a wind farm, wind turbines would not be as close together as illustrated in this diagram. Wind turbines should be spaced at least 7-15 diameter widths apart for optimal performance. Given that a 2-MW turbine can be taller than the Statue of Liberty, really tall constructions can cover a large amount of territory. A minimal amount of land area necessary for this hypothetical wind farm array would be roughly 318 square miles, with additional land required for access roads, ground leveling, and tree clearance. Wind farms are typically built in groups of 10-30 or more turbines, with a name-plate capacity of 30-50 MW. As a result, a group of 2077 2-MW (4154 MW name-plate capacity) wind turbines will never be built.
The 1154-MW nuclear power plant may normally take up around 50 acres of land, with at least a one-square-mile buffer space. This picture depicts a nuclear power plant without an optional cooling tower, which can reach a height of 200 meters.
The goal of this graphic is to provide a visual comparison of wind and nuclear power in terms of capacity factors. Although there are many other aspects to consider, the capacity factor is a simple data-driven comparison that is simple to grasp yet frequently missed.