Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Sweden has little wind-power, but good statistics. So I decided to check the numbers from the energy authority on if wind is less reliable then water or nuclear power.

Energimyndigheten - Energiläget

Dokument

Now, I find a handy set of data on installed windpower (MW) and delivered power (GWh) (set 23), on water and nuclear I find only delivered power (21 and 25). I assume that installed effect was roughly the same for water and nuclear  over the years 1991-2010 (water was afaik, nuclear somewhat with Barsebäck closing down and the other reactors receiving upgrades). Water is in Sweden used both as baseload and topload because we got so much (Vattenfall is Swedish for waterfall). If anyone comes across a handy set of numbers on installed nuclear and water 1991-2010 please let me know so I can improve this.

For wind I chose production/effect as it was being constructed at the time. 1991 is chosen as startyear because the production before that was so small that rounding errors in the set could disturb the outcome.

They yearly standard deviation (in percentage of the main value) then becomes:
Wind 9.5%
Water 10.8%
Nuclear 9.9%

So about the same. Can we now in the future get some reference if it is claimed that wind is more variable then nuclear?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jan 6th, 2012 at 10:31:14 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display: