We could easily find the money and the wind resources to 10 per year, or 50, and that would cost roughly $250 billion than building 50 nuclear reactors. . . .
That came out all scrambled up, and I am not even using voice input.
I meant we could build the equivalent of 10 to 50 nuclear power reactor equivalent (NPRE) per year in wind farms. 10 NPRE = 9,000 MW actual, or 27,000 MW nameplate for wind. This would not put a strain on world production of steel and concrete, although it would cost a lot of money. A crash program to build 1,000 NPRE per year would drastically effect world markets for steel and other resources. It would be like going to war, or conducting another Manhattan project. The Manhattan project used up a significant fraction of U.S. industrial output and electric power in 1943 and 1944.
The average turbine these days is 1 or 2 MW, depending on the location. Enormous 10 MW ones are under development for optimum locations such as offshore.
Estimating very roughly, the U.S. has 100 nuclear plants averaging 900 MW actual (taking into account the times they are off-line). They produce 20% of U.S. electricity, so we would need ~500 to produce all electricity. (This would not actually work with 500 conventional plants, because you cannot turn them on and off quickly enough to balance the load, and for various other reasons. They only work for baseline generation.) The U.S. consumes about 25% of the world's electricity, so the world would need ~2,000 U.S. style large nuclear plants, or 2,000 NPRE. If you look at actual U.S. and world generating capacity, you will find very different numbers, much higher than this, because power plants have to turn on and off and meet peak demand. I am assuming here that some kind of effective hydrogen buffer or giant batteries could smooth demand.
Previously I said we could meet world demand by building 80 NPRE per year for 20 years. This should have been ~100 per year for 20 years. Of course this only a rough estimate. You would have to start replacing the old ones even before the project ended, plus demand is likely to increase. This is a ballpark estimate, intended only to show that the project is doable, and it would not cost unthinkable amounts of money. Building 2,000 present-day design nuclear plants would be unthinkable. Any alternative would be cheaper -- even space elevators and space-based solar.
Next generation nuclear plants might be very attractive. That is a whole different story.
- Jed
