Stephen, I was interested to see your recent post, below.
Reading the paper, there is something I am not clear about. A nuclear
power station is typically on full blast all the time giving a capacity
factor of 1 (except when it has to go off). However a gas plant will
modulate its output according to demand, giving I would guess a typical
capacity factor of say 0.6 (guess).
So, when the authors compare nuclear power and CCGT emissions, are they
forcing the CCGT to have a CF of 1 like nuclear? If so this is to
greatly exaggerate the actual CO2 emissions that you would expect from a
CCGT.
Another factor to consider is that as we get more intermittent
renewables like wind and solar PV on the grid, the effect will be to
further reduce the CF of gas plant - since when wind is generating
strongly, CCGTs will scale back their output. This will further reduce
the CCGT's CO2 emissions
Regards, Oliver.
==========================================
Stephen Salter <[email protected]> Aug 23 11:58AM +0100 ^
<mailbox:///C%7C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Oliver/Application%20Data/Thunderbird/Profiles/s4tkdjyp.Oliver/Mail/Local%20Folders/Inbox?number=128158075#digest_top>
Hi All
While a nuclear power station is working normally the main CO2 emissions
are the plant operators driving to work or slipping out for a smoke.
However quite a lot of oil is needed for more...
<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/6c0b24968aac4022>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
