Talk:Distributed generation/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV tag

Sorry, I can clearly see that a lot of effort has gone into this article, but this article seems seriously slanted in perspective. It reads like an advertisement for distributed generation. There are a large number of unsoursed and dubious statements which contribute to this. I removed one such statement (that coal provides >99% of electricity in industrial countries) because it is patently incorrect.

A few other examples:

1. "pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors have no proven safety advantage" — technically correct, because neither have left the prototype phase, but still the designs are widely believed to be proactively safe.
2. "Typical distributed power sources have low maintenance, low pollution and high efficiencies" — no! diesel generators are the most common distributed generation method, which are usually dirty and inefficient..
3. "microhydropower...has nearly zero maintenance costs, and generates useful power indefinitely." — untrue. Bearings eventually wear out; dynamos, inverters, and other such equipment has a useful life.
4. "The hot exhaust is then used ... to drive an absorptive chiller for air-conditioning." — Sure, but absorptive chillers are very expensive systems, usually only seen in large-scale use.
5. "Distributed cogeneration sources use natural gas-fired microturbines or reciprocating engines to turn generators...currently have uneven reliability..." — small natural gas generators have been available off-the-shelf for decades, mainly for use as back-up generators in mission-critical applications, so I suspect they have excellent reliability.

I have a suspicion that one or more of the original sources used by the authors is of dubious integrity.

⇝Casito⇝Talk 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • The first about reactors - is technically correct, so we agree on that one. next,Mion (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It states typical , not common, maybe we should change that to "Typical distributed power sources in a FIT scheme", that would exclude the polluting devices (and also the diesel generators).Mion (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "nearly zero maintenance costs" That statement is True. you'r mixing replacement costs with maintenance costs maybe we should state more clear, nearly zero maintenance costs per kWh. Mion (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 4. Not true, off the shelf, 18 tot 238 kW,[1]. with absorptive chiller, source is added to the article. Mion (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 5 "uneven reliability", as you'r stating small natural gas generators are top , true, however there are a lot of experimental cogeneration devices, especially the ones with a fuel cell, where one type is more reliable than the other. which makes the statement true. Mion (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • • Thanks for helping to improve the article, Mion (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear cost

I have heard capital costs for building a new nuclear plant are comparable to installing solar panels, about $3 Billion to build a 1000 MW power plant, plus the cost of decommissioning, which is twice as high, making the 40 times cost highly dubious. Fixed. While I was looking for a source I found one amusing reference that gave the cost for nuclear power as so many cents per kWh, not including capital costs - pretty odd considering that most of the cost of nuclear is capital costs - fuel in another reference only costs 0.5 cents/kWh. Cheapthrill (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Westinghouse thinks it can build that 1000 MW plant for $1.2 billion. However, Nuclear Engineering International would not be surprised if it did cost $3 billion. Any ratio of these numbers are going to be wildly speculative, and that's where the inconsistency comes from. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied giving the same stuff you used as a reference. I had read the article and thought it was a accurate representation. What I don't understand is why you went through and took only the highest number in the entire article out of an entire host of them presented. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the highest cost. One cost factor not included is interest - it takes 5-6 years to build a nuclear power plant and you have to pay interest on the construction loans during that time. Solar and wind can be installed much more quickly. All I was doing was correcting the odd statement that a 1000 MW nuclear power plant could be build for $60 million, and I picked a midpoint figure from the article. Cheapthrill (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, 60 million for a 1 MW plant is just orders of magnitude off. The number for coal was similar. I don't know where anyone got these from. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not going to embarrass anyone by checking history... Cheapthrill (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added your reference to Photovoltaics, which I imagine is the proper place for a discussion about costs and these sorts of claims. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

$ 2,2 according to real life costs in Japan from a 2004 plant [2], i think that is better than a projected price that may or maynot match. Mion (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's a good mid-range number. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Photovoltaics price

Can you be more specific to what you are pointing in Photovoltaics for the price ? Cheers. Mion (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikilinks should never be used for references. They are not reliable sources. Cheapthrill (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said before? I'm not arguing a wikilink should be used as a reference, I'm saying you can't contradict another article. POV-forks happen all the time where there is a main authoritative article, but people go to other articles containing parallel information and put in stuff that wouldn't survive in the main one because they know less people look at that. Your referenced claim should go in Photovoltaics. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My "referenced claim" was created by looking for your data in photovoltaics and copying the reference that appeared there. I did not even check it. You really need to assume good faith. Errors occur, not POV forks occur. Putting in that nuclear plants cost 50 times less than solar panels was not a POV, it was an unreferenced error. I'm sure that whoever put it in thought that it was an accurate number. Putting in that installation cost is zero if you do it yourself is appropriate in an article about small rooftop installations, not in an article that focuses mostly on large photovoltaic installations. Which by the way can also have effectively zero installation costs, but that is neither here nor there (Nellis Solar Plant is selling solar power at 2.2 cents/kWh, which will net them a whopping $11 million over the 20 year life of the agreement, yet the installation cost $100 million - and was paid for by selling the renewable energy credits). Cheapthrill (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

a rooftop installation is a decentralised installation, in general they are allways small, the page photovoltaics is about large installations, i think its worth to mention that it has the option, no construction costs -DIY. And maybe its better tom rewrite that section and remove the price part, in that i follow Theanphibian that the discussions are more at home at their own pages.. Mion (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)