There is also no comparison of the downtime requirements of any other form of power. Steam Boilers ALL have to do some form of maintenance on the tubes, which is a different process in a Nuke from a Fossil Fueled boiler due to the tubes being exposed to combustion gases in the latter, but in all cases the boiler water/steam chemistry has to be carefully watched and the tubes de-scaled periodically AFAIK. In other words, there is a hidden bias in this article, or some of the assumptions, as conventional plants (and Nukes) ARE designed with spare capacity to be able to back each other up for the scheduled maintenance. Moreover, the power factors being listed are starting from the viewpoint of the Wind Turbine's upper limit (per the wind availability)... and so they look more fragile... I am not saying the tech is anywhere near the development completion/robustness of the conventional plants but I am a bit concerned at the way the comparisons are being done.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra