|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Distributed generation article.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Environment||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Off topic
- 2 Plagarism
- 2.1 Distributed Power Generation
- 2.2 Executive Summary
- 2.3 Introduction
- 2.4 Current status
- 2.5 Location
- 2.6 Capacity
- 2.7 Grid connection
- 2.8 What are the options?
- 2.9 Future Aspects for fuel cells
- 2.10 Costs
- 2.11 Economic Considerations
- 2.12 Current Policies
- 2.13 Government
- 2.14 Social Impact
- 2.15 The Benefits
- 2.16 The Disadvantages
- 2.17 The Risks
- 2.18 Obstacles
- 3 Conclusion
- 4 NPOV tag
- 5 Nuclear cost
- 6 Photovoltaics price
- 7 Cost/W?
- 8 Merge proposal
I was actually redirected to this page, having searched for District Energy - a good page I referred to yesterday. This Distributed Power page does not cover the district energy topic, except in passing; instead it seems to push an agenda of distributed generation - related, and arguable laudable, but definitely *not* the topic of district energy. IanGTheaker (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the links on this page do not refer to Distributed power, as described in the article but refer to Renewable energy and other topics, such as Domotics or domestic robotics and Power appliance remote control or Power line communication. As I understand Distributed power, it involves the production of electricity by consumers for transmission to other consumers nearby. -- kiwiinapanic 10:44 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Your article on Distributed power would be more accurately titled Distributed generation. It is an article which fits well into the series of articles on electricity, electricity market, electric power transmission, electricity generation, and electricity distribution. Distributed power is more about the distribution of power whereas "distributed generation" is a topical subject associated with how local generation can contribute to how future electricity needs can be met, including from renewable energy sources. I agree with kiwiinapanic that there are too many unrelated links. I would be happy to cooperate with you on the article, if you wish. Tiles 05:49 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This page is directly plagarized from page 26 of "Electric Power Industry" by Denise Warkentin-Glenn. 01:23 31 Jan 2007
- The anonymous editor is correct, I found the book on Google Print, and many parts of this article were a cut/paste copyvio. I'm trying to determine if there's enough left to salvage, or if it should be deleted. Seraphimblade 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Distributed Power Generation
Distributed energy resources are a variety of small, modular power generating technologies that can be combined with energy management and storage systems and used to improve the operation of the electricity delivery system. It is evident that Technology options for distributed generation are abundant, and improving. Employing distributed generation can be as simple as installing a small electricity generator to provide backup power at an electricity consumers site, or it can be a more complex system that is highly integrated with the electricity grid and consists of electricity generation and energy storage. Distributed power has a wide range of benefits to both consumers and power providers, and many of these benefits are currently difficult to measure. Combined heat and power, energy storage, and energy efficiency measures can be integrated with distributed generators to increase the economic value, and enhance the other benefits, of distributed power systems. As there is the potential for major portion of the electricity power supply to come from decentralised power sources, billing and energy credits, generation control and system stability remain significant issues limiting the widespread use of this technology.
In the United Kingdom, large generator stations are the main producers of electricity; the plants are powered largely by coal or other fossil fuels. “The market for small-scale distributed power generation is being driven by a trend of rising and increasingly volatile fossil fuel prices, the rising concern for power quality / reliability and environmental concerns ” Distributed power generation is a new concept in the electricity sector that provides electric power at a site closer to the customers than a central station generation. The generators are relatively small which are at or near the end users, typically ranging in capacities from a couple of kilowatts up to fifty megawatts. The key factors that are pushing the market forward are: market liberalisation and environmental concerns. “Customers usually own the small-scale, on-site power generators, but they may be owned and operated by a third party. If the distributed generator does not provide 100% of the customer's energy needs at all times, it can be used in conjunction with a distributed energy storage device or a connection with the local grid for backup power.”  Distributed power technologies are smaller, efficient and cleaner than centralised power system. They can provide reliable and uninterrupted quality power; have peak shaving capabilities, standby generation, base load generation, cogeneration (the production of electricity using waste heat, as in steam, from an industrial process or the use of steam from electric power generation as a source of heat) and meet cooling and heating needs. Various technologies are available for distributed generation, including turbine generators, internal combustion engine/ generators, micro-turbines, photovoltaic/solar panels, wind turbines, and fuel cells. The new technology also improves the efficiency of waste heat in combined heat and power (CHP) applications, which also lowers emissions. “CHP systems provide electricity, hot water, heat for industrial processes, space heating and cooling, refrigeration, and humidity control to improve indoor air quality and comfort”. 
Distributed generation refers to the production of electricity at or near the place of consumption. Examples of distributed generation include backup generators at hospitals, photovoltaic systems on residential rooftops, and combined heat and power (CHP) systems in industrial plants or on university campuses. Although some types of distributed generators have been around for many years, the earliest generators were largely distributed in the sense that they were located near the points of consumption, total customer owned generation as a percentage of all output is very small. There are three main characteristics that differentiate most distributed generation from traditional electricity supply, they are:- 1. Location 2. Capacity 3. Grid connection
They are typically on site generators; they are used to meet a portion of the customer’s demands or to provide backup service for customers that need highly reliable power. Applications of small scale distributed generation could include CHP for universities to generate electricity on campus and then use waste steam from the boiler to heat buildings. Electric utilities can also install their own small generators near consumer, in order to relieve congestion in power lines during peak demands. They may also be used to boost the quality and reliability of local electricity service by providing voltage control and backup power to customers.
The size of customer owned units, which are mostly used to meet onsite requirements, typically range from a few kilowatts to a several hundred kilowatts. Generators in that ranges of power are normally best suited to applications that meet the energy demands of individual homes and businesses or of small groups of customers.
Traditional suppliers are connected to the grid at a transmission level. If distributed generation came in to widespread use, most distributed generators would be connected to the grid at the distribution level, which is the portion of the delivery network, built with limited capacity.
I don't know if here is the place to ask the question, but How do they solve security problems of connecting to the grid? I mean, How do they make sure there is not electricity to do the maintenance in the transmission system? There should be a solution I would like to know how it works. --Nachoj (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What are the options?
There are many technologies available that are suited to small distributed generation applications. Among the technologies fuelled by fossil energy are conventional steam turbines, combustion turbines, internal combustion engine generators, micro-turbines and fuel cells. The renewable technologies are photovoltaic cells, wind powered generators and biomass fuelled generators.
Conventional steam turbines and combustion turbines are well-developed technologies that are widely used for medium sized systems (more than 500 kilowatts). The turbines produce low emissions, give standard control equipment, and they have low maintenance and operating costs relative to those of most other generating technologies. Those characteristics, along with the short lead times needed to build units, makes them the preferred technology for most conventional generation applications requiring more than several megawatts of power.
Internal Combustion engines
Internal combustion engine generators, including diesel cycle and spark ignition motors, are the most commonly used technology providing backup power for reliability or emergency supply purposes. Units range in size from 5 kilowatts to 7 megawatts. They can burn refined petroleum products, namely, diesel and gasoline or natural gas. These engines drive the vast majority of onsite generation. They are mass produced by many manufactures around the world, cost less than other distributed generation technologies, and have a fully developed sales, maintenance, and repair infrastructure. All of these factors combined with market familiarity, decreasing exhaust emissions, extended service intervals, and long engine life, continue to make engines the most commonly distributed generation technology. 
Microturbines are small combustion turbine generators that were developed on the bases of the turbocharger technology used in trucks and airplanes. The capacity range of micro turbines is 30 kW to 400 kW, covers the average load requirements (consumption needs) of most commercial and light industrial customers. Micro turbines have low emissions of pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides, which would permit there insulation in urban areas with restricted emissions standards. Microturbines became commercially available in 1998. Although they are slightly higher initial costs, they are currently the most cost effective alternative to reciprocating engines for small scale generation. They operate on the same basic thermodynamic principle as the conventional gas turbine. However they are much smaller than gas turbines, with output measured in the tens and hundreds of kilowatts, rather than megawatts. 
Fuel cells use an advance electrochemical process to generate electricity. The process is comparable to that used in conventional batteries, except that the reactant material in fuel cells can be replenished so that the units will not run down. Fuel cells produce virtually no emissions of air pollutants or green house gases. Because there costs per installed kilowatt are still high relative to those of conventional technology, commercially available fuel cells currently suite only very specialised applications. But some companies have developed new fuel cell technology that project will lower costs significantly.Noise from fuel cells is very low compared with other distributed generation technology, and it generally only comes from air blowers and water pumps in the cooling module. Fuel cell systems can also use waste heat to boost thermal efficiency to 80 percent or higher.  There are several different types of fuel cells, namely by the type of electrolyte they use:- • Phosphoric acid • Proton exchange membrane • Solid oxide • Molten carbonate • Alkaline
Photovoltaic cells convert sunlight into an electrical current. A panel of semiconductor material sandwich between two conducting layers absorbs solar energy and releases electrons to produce the current. Photovoltaic systems can be small, which is why they can easily be used on houses. Photovoltaic cells produce no direct emissions, and they have low maintenance requirements. Improvements in the manufacturing processes have reduced the costs of this technology significantly in the past decade. But still, the acquisition and installation costs of the photovoltaic system are approximately ten times greater than those of conventional systems. 
Future Aspects for fuel cells
Fuel cells may capture a significant part of the distributed generation market as technology in proven and costs are reduced. This may be proven by:-
• Different fuel cell types for different applications • High efficiency • Power quality and reliability • Low emissions • A link to renewable fuels • Low energy service costs
The difference in costs cost and performance among the distributed generation technologies:-
Capacity (kW) Capital cost
( £ / kW) Electrical efficiency % Maintenance ( £ / kWh) Micro-turbine 30-25 300 - 600 25 - 30 0.015 Fuel cell ~200 ~2000 40 - 70 0.01 photovoltaic ~100 ~3500 NA 0.005 internal combustion engine ~5000 300 - 600 25 - 45 0.006 Industrial gas turbines 500-MW 200 - 400 15 - 35 0.018 Stirling engine 100 - MW ~4000 15 -25 0.018 Source: BC hydro, Power smart for business / Investigate energy Management tools, based on data from Platts (research and Consultants) The direct costs of distributed generation include:- • Installation costs of equipment • Fuel costs • Non-fuel operation • maintenance expenses “The cost of acquiring and installing a generating unit vary widely, depending on technology and capacity. Among small capacity technologies, internal combustion engines have the lowest capital costs and the highest capital costs. Renewable technologies have the highest capital costs and the lowest operating costs. New high efficiency technologies, such as micro turbines and fuel cells, fall in between.”  “Capital and generation costs are not the only parameters affecting cost and choice of distributed generation systems:- • Maturity, technical and environmental performance are critical to technology and fuel selection • The systems must pay connection charges • Licensed generators must pay license fees • Delivered energy costs depend on network issues, policy and regulation” Source: Decentralised generation- technologies and Market prospects
Trends in costs
The capital and operating costs of certain distributed generation technologies have fallen significantly in the recent years and can be expected to continue to do so. In the case of one technology, photovoltaic systems, the cost per delivered kilowatt hour in suitable applications has plummeted by almost 70 percent since 1980, and it is projected to decline by another 70 percent from the current levels by 2020”.  It has been forecasted that fuel cells will decline in cost also improve in performance in the next few years to the point where they are applicable for widespread use. 
Although a comparison of typical costs for various distributed generation technologies is found to be extremely useful when considering the installation of distributed generation, there are other key factors which must be taken into thought. Distributed generation technologies differ from central power by providing better quality and money saving which in result outweighs the direct cost difference. Commercial and small industrial customers with significant hot water needs can use microturbines in combined heat and power (CHP) applications. Customers in environmentally sensitive areas can use fuel cells that produce extremely low emissions and noise. For rural applications, photovoltaic systems are ideal as they reduce the need capital spending to extend power lines to remote sites.
Utility Act 2000
‘Utility act 2000’ is a governmental legislation on energy and market liberalisation. Principles which involved: new duty on distribution businesses to facilitate completion in generation and supply. 
A government target which aims is to increase the renewable electricity market by 10% near 2010; applies to all licensed suppliers as a percentage of all sales including CHP (buy out set at £3/MWh). Total obligation will represent around 32 TWh/year by 2010.
Climate Change Programme
The intentions of the government in the programme are; 20% reductions of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 from 1990. Renewable and good quality CHP applications, which may include fuel cells, are exempt from the policy. An attractive incentive such as the formation of the ‘Carbon Trust’ was created in order to fund low carbon technologies and projects.
DEFRA initiative. The Aim is to create 10GW good quality CHP by 2010. Exemption from CCL for good quality CHP based on energy efficiency and environmental performance of CHP plant compared to good alternative energy supply options – beneficial for FC’s. Enhanced capital allowances directed at good quality CHP.
Energy Efficiency Commitments Programme
A programme administered by Ofgem. Energy efficiency Obligations on electricity and gas suppliers could support installation of distributed generation at end users by energy suppliers. 
Distributed generation working group (OFGEM and DTI consultation and research group) Review and draft regulation amendments, connection and operation of distributed generation, current technical, regulatory, and commercial developments relevant to distributed generation. 
The United Kingdom in contrast to other countries has an advanced liberalised market, which has policies that favour the development of combined heat and power (CHP) and renewable sources of energy and considers the development of distributed power generation in general as an important way to increase competition among electricity producers.
The UK Government commissioned an 'Embedded Generation Working Group' to examine the role of distributed generation in the liberalised market. The group's report, issued in January 2001, identified a number of practical measures to ensure that distributed generation is integrated into the power system in an economically efficient way. A 'Distributed Generation co-ordinating Group' has been established to follow up on the Working Group's recommendations. 
“Many of the benefits and costs of Distributed power technologies accrue to people other than those who decide to install the generators, incur its direct costs and claim its benefits. Economists like to call these effects externalities”. 
Failing to account for externalities is one form market failure (unless the market structure is instituted so that a full range of costs and benefits accrue to the investor of the energy generator, they are unlikely to make the optimal social investment choice.)
Distributed generation, operated as complement to traditionally supplied power, may offer significant benefits. It could lower the nations overall costs of producing and delivering power. It could also promote the development and use of renewable energy sources and fuel efficient technologies, which could improve the quality of the air and the security of the nations energy supply.  “Distributed power has a wide range of benefits to both consumers and power providers, and many of these benefits are currently difficult to measure. Combined heat and power, energy storage, and energy efficiency measures can be integrated with distributed generators to increase the economic value, and enhance the other benefits, of distributed power systems.” Distributed generation offers important benefits for generation, transmission and distribution activities, the environment and the final customers as reliability and quality of power. In general, from the electricity industry perspective, the benefits include the following:  • Generator can be sited close to the end-user for lower transmission distributed costs and electrical losses. • Sites for small generators are easier to find. • Distributed generators are more quickly planned and installed. • Energy can be ‘stored’ as fuel (e.g., gas) and easily ‘released’ at peak times. • The network can ‘close ranks’ if one generator is taken off-line, resulting in higher reliability. • Newer technologies are environmentally clean (low emissions and low land impact) and not noisy. • Newer distributed generators can run on multiple types of fuels, even bio-gas, thus increasing flexibility and reducing fuel transportation costs. • Services and benefits that can be provided by other resources. These include spinning reserve, black start capability (micro turbines can go from cold start to full load in two minutes), load following and reactive power. From the customer point of view the benefits include the following: • Power is readily available and offers better quality and reliability. • Depending on the fuel used, electricity prices are often lower. • Since the generators can be operated on command, peak shaving is possible, which reduces demand charges. • Co-generation of heat and electricity improves the overall energy efficiency of the installation. Benefits on the environment Many environmental and energy conservation campaigners believe that distributed generation could offer significant benefits. Benefits for environmental quality may come from distributed generation’s role in promoting renewable energy sources, less polluting forms of fossil energy, and high efficiency technologies.  Distributed generation technologies that relied on renewable energy sources could yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases if those technologies displaced utility supplied power, much of which is generated from coal. Technologies that relied on conventional fuels would yield environmental benefits if they resulted in a shift to less polluting energy sources. High efficiency technologies could yield benefits by reducing the amount of energy required to produce a unit of electricity. 
- - - - Discussion: (I'm new on wikipedia and it isn¨t easy to find where this should be placed. Please move it to a better place if needed).
De-centralizing the energy production may very well lead to increased climate and local emissions as well as less investments in energy efficiency and use of waste energy.
Typical example is district heating, where centralised co-fired plants will be better in cleaning the exhausts from local emissions than small decentralised ones, where centralised plants can be placed by the water to use bulky biomass instead of having trucks delivering at every single household, where you can use the natural 4 centigrade water for district cooling, where economy of scale make it possible to use low-value heating as ground water or waste water, where you can use counter-current to produce both district heating and district cooling. A few centralised plants connected by a common grid also opens up for using waste heat from grocery stores, computer centres, industry etc.
For electrics it is almost always better to centralize than de-centralize. - windmills gathered in parks can be placed far away from cities and hence disturb much less people than decentralized - Hydropower will always ruin nature - it would be a catastrophy to close the existing big ones and decentralize it to many new small ones. Let's keep the big centralised ones we have and lets close the small ones - they are generating very little power compared to how much nature they destroy - possibly it is also better to centralize photovoltaics - using the benefits of economy of scale for maintenance and service. It might be a much better solution to use the roofs as green roofs and city gardens - green roofs reduce energy need during summer and reduce energy nedd for taking care of water after downpours.
Centuries of experience shows that having your own cheap energy production is a strong disincentive for investing in making your house more energy efficient.
By keeping the energy production centralised we can also save money by not having to invest heavily in smart grids. For some countries decentralising may be a feasible option as their grid need heavily investments - but it is not a panacea. And there is alway the option to reduce the electricity use.
- - - -
The introduction of new electricity trading rules, known as the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA), have created disadvantages to small distributed generators because of higher transaction costs, requirements for balancing output against forecast, and, most importantly, because of the fall in power prices. As a consequence, NETA has led to greatly reduced power output to the grid by distributed generators. 
The prospects for widespread adoption of distributed generation technologies are not all certain. Nor is it clear that those technologies will be used in ways that achieve their full potential economic benefits. Moreover, this new source of electricity poses a distinct risk of negative impacts that may be difficult to anticipate or expensive to avoid. Those effects include potential degradation in the performance of the electricity distribution network, inequitable and possibly inefficient redistribution of the costs of electricity service among customers, and a decline in environmental quality. 
The distributed generation technologies with the greatest market potential are probably those fuelled by fossil energy, not renewable energy. High efficiency micoturbine and fuel cell technologies are still at the early stages of commercialisation, so their potential is largely unknown. Thus, the immediate promise of improved air quality from wider adoption of distributed generation may be limited
Today’s distribution networks have been built to deliver power from the national transmission network to the end customers. Distribution generation, however, requires more active distribution networks which allow electricity to flow in two directions (to electricity user, and on the network when the user is exporting excess generation capacity. 
It is evident that Technology options for distributed generation are abundant, and improving. Barriers to the breakthrough Arfita (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC) break trough of decentralised generation are related relate to; • Breaking the one-track centralised energy provision approach by generators, network operators and security requirements – need to change the regulations. • Market created for centralised energy provision, small player are left out. • Lack of cheap power electronics that will ensure network stability. • High costs of network reinforcement. • Regulatory uncertainty. • Further analysis is required regarding design, operation and control of systems.
Distributed generation is expected to play a greater role in power generation over thy coming decades. There is a growing interest on the part of power consumers for installing their own generating capacity in order to take advantage of flexible distributed generation technologies to produce power during favourable times, enhance power reliability and quality, or supply heating/cooling needs. While much of this capacity generally contributes little to overall electricity production, it can be expected to become an increasingly important source of peak supply.
1. Distributed power generation facts, January 2004 www.the-infoshop.com/study/bc8485_power_generation.html
2. Energy efficiency and renewable program, supplementary submission from National grid, June 2003 www.dti.gov.uk/energy/egwg
4. BC hydro report, power smart / investigate energy management tools, small scale distributed generation, 9 January 2004, www.bchydro.com
5. ‘Current status’ distributed energy report, September 2001. www.3nw.com/energy/dg/distributed_generation.htm
6. Energy report on DG, May 2001 www.energy.ca.gov/distgen
7. prospects of distributed energy, sep 2003, www.cbo.gov/showdoc
8. Small Scale Distribution Generation details, April 2001 http://www.3nw.com/energy/dg/distributed_generation.htm
9. Distributed energy future trends. WebPages: www.3nw.com/energy/dg/distributed_generation.htm
10. Britain looks to ease small-scale power generation http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13532&newsdate=03-Dec-2001
11. Report of the OFGEM/DTI Embedded generation group, Date: 27- Sep 2001 www.ofgem.gov.uksumm
12. Distribution generation fact sheet. ‘The way forward’. Date 26-03-2002. www.ofgem.gov.uk
13. Net Metering Considerations for small scale, consumer owned Generation, September 2003 www.usda.gov
14. ‘Total social impact Framework. January 2002’ www.energy/dgeneartion.htm
15. ‘Power generations – a review of the way forward.’ Her majesty’s inspectorate of pollution, Author: D J White, report number: DoE/hmip/rr/95/016 06 January 1999
16. Decentralised generation technologies and market Perspective, March 2004, www.iea.org/bdtw-wpd/textables/work/2004/distgen.pdf
"The plus side is that unlike coal and hydropower, there are no pollution, mining safety or operating safety issues."
OTOH the majority of solar PV installs use lead acid batteries, which do come with operating safety issues. Tabby 03:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
- "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.
- "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..
- "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.
- "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.
- "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.
- 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,. 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)
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)
- And I'm not going to embarrass anyone by checking history... Cheapthrill (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- $ 2,2 according to real life costs in Japan from a 2004 plant , i think that is better than a projected price that may or maynot match. Mion (talk) 12:50, 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)
I think some numbers concerning levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are in order. There's only one mention of LCOE at all, and it's pretty indirect (something about "levelized cost of generation" being higher for distributed generation than for other sources; further aggravated by no citation). It should be noted that LCOE takes into account basically every relevant factor, including capital costs, interest, fuel, transportation, inefficiency of transmission, disposal of wastes, and decommissioning; so it's a pretty good basis of comparison. The price of nuclear power, for instance, is hardly ever quoted in terms of anything other than LCOE, precisely because the low operational costs are misleading. Ahnrenene (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do not merge: Distributed Generation is about the ways to produce energy. "Microgrids" is about how to operate a grid or a part of a lerger grid, with distributed generation as a requirement but additiohal features.
- Sugget to skip the merge banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerwind7 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do not merge; The article is too comprehensive to consider it as being simplistic. Such as a Voltaic (electric) solar array / wind turbine combiation that many individuals (including myself) have installed on their properties. The contributor has specified the system is multiscourced with regard to power generation, and the size of the installation cannot be considered to be domestic.
- This article is about baking bread. All that stuff about mixing and kneading dough should be split off into another article. Really, how much of the reader's time do we want to spend on gathering increasingly tiny slivers of information out of the deep shag carpet of Wikipedia and trying to glue them together into the broken souvenier ashtray of knowledge? But if you do split it, please write it in English, not in academic thesis-ese, and give more than one reference, not just your prof's book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as stated above, Distributed Generation is about generation; Microgrids is about grid operation. A more apt analogy might be to compress the article on ovens into a sub-section in the baking bread article. I do plan to help rewrite the Microgrids article, but these things take time. Also, I'm not exactly a Wikipedia ninja... how does one unmerge articles? Thanks. GBMorris (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)