Blog
10.January 2008 - 05:11
Electrical theory for blondes and brunettes
I was in Oslo last weekend, leading the annual meeting of the First Step Forum which focuses on religious tensions. For the time being, I will continue as the chairwoman of this organisation. We also met Kjell-Magne Bondevik, the former Prime Minister who is now the leader of the Oslo Center for Human Rights. We spent five hours brainstorming, during which we noticed that we’re interested in the same issues. And why ever not! The world is not the same anymore. The tension between the communist and western world has turned into a tension between Islam and the West. It means that there are new things to be learnt and considered within politics.
While in Oslo, I received a really astonishing piece of news from my party’s news service: according to my colleague Riitta Myller, Finland could increase the production volume of wind energy to the level of nuclear power by 2020 and this could even happen profitably, which means that there would be no trickeries with the feed-in tariffs.
I was quite sure that someone had totally misunderstood something. Was it the journalist or the MEP herself? I looked in the Aamulehti newspaper for the news and there it was: she thought that the wind power capacity could be increased to 2000 megawatts by 2020. It could be possible, but only with the strictest supportive means. This, however, does not mean that we would reach the same level as we have with nuclear power when measured with the quantity of elecricity to be extracted.
We laymen – if we are not exact – will often get mixed up with the electric power that is represented by kilowatts (kW) and megawatts (MW), and electrical energy, which is referred to by megawatt-hours (MWh) or terawatt-hours (TWh). These two things are not the same.
Or should I explain this in words of one syllable: what if we use some descriptive terms, such as dwarf electricity, giant electricity or other similar kinds of terms? And, should we describe power (MW) through a horse that is asleep and therefore cannot work, and energy (MWh) through a horse that snorts and is working…
On the other hand, engineers will most certainly be very depressed, if an experienced parliament representative is only able to understand these concepts if they are presented at this level. No wonder then that the energy policy of the EU is exactly the way it is.
On Monday morning, I checked the facts in the article and really – there it was, Myller has mixed up megawatts and megawatt-hours in her report: she’s talking about capacity, together with megawatt-hours in the same sentence.
So what is wrong with Myller’s estimation? The fact, for example, that it does not make any sense to increase wind power to the same level as nuclear power, if we don’t talk about the electricity quantities that will be produced. There is no use comparing the power of different production forms with each other, it is merely a conjuring trick.
The problem is that the blow-dryers of both Riitta and myself are not just functioning on nominal electric power, but electric energy. Riitta’s estimation concerning Finland’s wind power capacity (2000 MW) does not generate more electric energy than just about 5 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. This would be less than a fourth of the electricity that is generated by nuclear power at the present time.
Currently, the capacity of nuclear power in Finland is 2700 MW. With this capacity, Finnish nuclear power plants generated about 22.5 TWh of electric energy in 2007, which is a 4.5-fold amount in comparison to the yield of the visionary wind power. When the next Finnish nuclear power plant (Olkiluoto 3) will be completed in 2010, the amount of electric energy, generated annually by Finnish nuclear power, will comprise ca. 35 TWh, which again is a 7-fold amount compared to Myller’s vision.
Therefore, it would be wise to take a closer look at those electricity quantities which each type of power plant produces, and not just at nominal electrical power. Different types of power plants are in operation for different periods of time per year and the modest utilisation period of the maximum load concerning wind power must be taken into consideration in calculations. The utilisation period of the maximum load of wind power may amount to 2500 hours per year and the utilisation period of the maximum loads of nuclear power has always been at least 8000 hours per year in Finland.
Even if this went one better, and besides, the substantial 100 MW of Finnish wind power were increased to 29 000 MW by 2020, it would still be a far cry from the electricity production numbers that are achieved by nuclear power.
However, herewith I state that I sincerely support the increase in wind power. But it must be based on a realistic concept of wind power’s possibilities, and not on any fantasies.
Here, in conclusion, is a short lesson for all blondes and pro-blondes: The annual production (ca. 8 000 000 MWh = 8 TWh) of a nuclear power plant of 1 000 MW (=megawatts) would require about a thousand 3 MW wind turbines that are 100 metres high with a rotor diameter of 100 m – in addition to this, another problem that should be solved would be the reserve power. Or alternatively, 220 000 truckloads of peat or a 1 500 km long and 10 m high pile of firewood. As for nuclear power, only one truck would be required to transport the respective amount of fuel.
Power units may be turned into electrical energy units, if the capacity of the power plant is multiplied by its utilisation period (i.e., 1000 MW * 8000 hours). 1 terawatt-hour is a million (1 000 000) megawatt-hours (MWh), which is a billion (1 000 000 000) kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Published: January 10, 2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/01/sahkooppia-blondeille-ja-bruneteille/
I was in Oslo last weekend, leading the annual meeting of the First Step Forum which focuses on religious tensions. For the time being, I will continue as the chairwoman of this organisation. We also met Kjell-Magne Bondevik, the former Prime Minister who is now the leader of the Oslo Center for Human Rights. We spent five hours brainstorming, during which we noticed that we’re interested in the same issues. And why ever not! The world is not the same anymore. The tension between the communist and western world has turned into a tension between Islam and the West. It means that there are new things to be learnt and considered within politics.
While in Oslo, I received a really astonishing piece of news from my party’s news service: according to my colleague Riitta Myller, Finland could increase the production volume of wind energy to the level of nuclear power by 2020 and this could even happen profitably, which means that there would be no trickeries with the feed-in tariffs.
I was quite sure that someone had totally misunderstood something. Was it the journalist or the MEP herself? I looked in the Aamulehti newspaper for the news and there it was: she thought that the wind power capacity could be increased to 2000 megawatts by 2020. It could be possible, but only with the strictest supportive means. This, however, does not mean that we would reach the same level as we have with nuclear power when measured with the quantity of elecricity to be extracted.
We laymen – if we are not exact – will often get mixed up with the electric power that is represented by kilowatts (kW) and megawatts (MW), and electrical energy, which is referred to by megawatt-hours (MWh) or terawatt-hours (TWh). These two things are not the same.
Or should I explain this in words of one syllable: what if we use some descriptive terms, such as dwarf electricity, giant electricity or other similar kinds of terms? And, should we describe power (MW) through a horse that is asleep and therefore cannot work, and energy (MWh) through a horse that snorts and is working…
On the other hand, engineers will most certainly be very depressed, if an experienced parliament representative is only able to understand these concepts if they are presented at this level. No wonder then that the energy policy of the EU is exactly the way it is.
On Monday morning, I checked the facts in the article and really – there it was, Myller has mixed up megawatts and megawatt-hours in her report: she’s talking about capacity, together with megawatt-hours in the same sentence.
So what is wrong with Myller’s estimation? The fact, for example, that it does not make any sense to increase wind power to the same level as nuclear power, if we don’t talk about the electricity quantities that will be produced. There is no use comparing the power of different production forms with each other, it is merely a conjuring trick.
The problem is that the blow-dryers of both Riitta and myself are not just functioning on nominal electric power, but electric energy. Riitta’s estimation concerning Finland’s wind power capacity (2000 MW) does not generate more electric energy than just about 5 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. This would be less than a fourth of the electricity that is generated by nuclear power at the present time.
Currently, the capacity of nuclear power in Finland is 2700 MW. With this capacity, Finnish nuclear power plants generated about 22.5 TWh of electric energy in 2007, which is a 4.5-fold amount in comparison to the yield of the visionary wind power. When the next Finnish nuclear power plant (Olkiluoto 3) will be completed in 2010, the amount of electric energy, generated annually by Finnish nuclear power, will comprise ca. 35 TWh, which again is a 7-fold amount compared to Myller’s vision.
Therefore, it would be wise to take a closer look at those electricity quantities which each type of power plant produces, and not just at nominal electrical power. Different types of power plants are in operation for different periods of time per year and the modest utilisation period of the maximum load concerning wind power must be taken into consideration in calculations. The utilisation period of the maximum load of wind power may amount to 2500 hours per year and the utilisation period of the maximum loads of nuclear power has always been at least 8000 hours per year in Finland.
Even if this went one better, and besides, the substantial 100 MW of Finnish wind power were increased to 29 000 MW by 2020, it would still be a far cry from the electricity production numbers that are achieved by nuclear power.
However, herewith I state that I sincerely support the increase in wind power. But it must be based on a realistic concept of wind power’s possibilities, and not on any fantasies.
Here, in conclusion, is a short lesson for all blondes and pro-blondes: The annual production (ca. 8 000 000 MWh = 8 TWh) of a nuclear power plant of 1 000 MW (=megawatts) would require about a thousand 3 MW wind turbines that are 100 metres high with a rotor diameter of 100 m – in addition to this, another problem that should be solved would be the reserve power. Or alternatively, 220 000 truckloads of peat or a 1 500 km long and 10 m high pile of firewood. As for nuclear power, only one truck would be required to transport the respective amount of fuel.
Power units may be turned into electrical energy units, if the capacity of the power plant is multiplied by its utilisation period (i.e., 1000 MW * 8000 hours). 1 terawatt-hour is a million (1 000 000) megawatt-hours (MWh), which is a billion (1 000 000 000) kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Published: January 10, 2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/01/sahkooppia-blondeille-ja-bruneteille/