In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper than Coal

[ScienceRocks]

In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper than Coal

July 26, 2012 By Nicholas Brown 4 Comments

Due to the cost of rising coal prices and a decrease in the cost of wind power (which has dropped considerably in recent years), the cost of wind power in some parts of India has fallen below that of electricity from coal power plants (not even taking health or global warming externalities into account).


A wind farm in Maharashtra, India

The cost of wind power is primarily dependent on the average wind speed in the location where wind turbines are to be installed. It is also dependent on the cost of labour required to install and maintain the wind turbines. Another factor that affects the cost of wind farm electricity is the initial price to buy the turbines.

This cost improvement mentioned above is due to increased turbine efficiency in recent years, and the increasing viability of generating electricity at lower wind speeds, according to Greenko Group Plc.

“Today we’re able to supply energy below the cost of conventional power,” said Mahesh Kolli, president of Greenko, which is building wind projects with General Electric Co. in India. “That’s the key development for this year.”
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1j7VU)

Clean Technica (In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper Than Coal)
In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper Than Coal

Now that it's cheaper than coal, it should replace coal. If this is so then wind power at least in India is going to become a very large percentage of the market. This is what we have been waiting for!

 

[Katzndogz]

How much does coal cost in some of these dirt poor villages? You could as easily say that dung bricks used as fuel are cheaper than coal too.

 

[polarbear]

In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper than Coal

July 26, 2012 By Nicholas Brown 4 Comments

Due to the cost of rising coal prices and a decrease in the cost of wind power (which has dropped considerably in recent years), the cost of wind power in some parts of India has fallen below that of electricity from coal power plants (not even taking health or global warming externalities into account).


A wind farm in Maharashtra, India

The cost of wind power is primarily dependent on the average wind speed in the location where wind turbines are to be installed. It is also dependent on the cost of labour required to install and maintain the wind turbines. Another factor that affects the cost of wind farm electricity is the initial price to buy the turbines.

This cost improvement mentioned above is due to increased turbine efficiency in recent years, and the increasing viability of generating electricity at lower wind speeds, according to Greenko Group Plc.

“Today we’re able to supply energy below the cost of conventional power,” said Mahesh Kolli, president of Greenko, which is building wind projects with General Electric Co. in India. “That’s the key development for this year.”
Clean Technica (In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper Than Coal)

Clean Technica (In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper Than Coal)
In Parts of India, Wind Energy Proving Cheaper Than Coal

Now that it's cheaper than coal, it should replace coal. If this is so then wind power at least in India is going to become a very large percentage of the market. This is what we have been waiting for!

Wind power is not cheaper than power from coal fired power plants. Consider where this "info" came from:

CleanTechnica: Cleantech News &...

We have been covering the cleantech industry obsessively since 2008, before it was popular for mainstream media to dedicate blogs or subdomains to the topic

What they are not telling You is that "wind power" cannot supply power on demand which is what you need to substitute a coal fired power plant or any other type which of power plant that is grid tied.
Bloggers like that translate only what suits their cause from other languages into English for home consumption.
If You could understand German You would know by now that wind power is neither "cheap" nor suitable to SUPPLY power. It`s one thing to generate power when the wind conditions are just right, but it`s an entirely different kettel of fish to SUPPLY power on demand.
In a power grid we are not talking about some little home brew system where the load does not wildly fluctuate and you can compensate with a few batteries and an inverter.
The other myth is that windmills are "environment friendly" and "cheap".
"Clean Technica" must know something that German engineers don`t know.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2H38UpdQhM&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=6&feature=plcp"]How Climate Science destroyed Germany.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

The world famous Black Forest is about to disappear, at least the hill tops.
They have to make way for huge water storage basins, each = the size of 50 football fields at a cost of > $1 billion !!!....to compensate for the load demand change that the wind turbines can not.
Now the "Greens" are screaming, but it`s too late and there are no alternatives after you committed to this pipe dream. German Engineers have warned the Government, but like most, Politicians and Enviro-activists have no clue about power engineering and how a power grid functions in the real world

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many places in the US where wind power is at present cheaper than dirty coal, and certainly cheaper than clean coal. As the price of solar continues to decline, and the efficiency of the panels increase, solar will soon also be cheaper than coal.

Were we in the US to create a single national distributed grid, and make use of our wind potential in Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Eastern Montana, the solar potential of our southern states, making use of existing roof tops, we could come very close to powering our nation with just those two alternatives.

 

[Douger]

Does" cheapah" refer to the price in Jew worshiped dollahzzz or overall impact ?

 

[waltky]

Obama gonna loan `em money so dey can buy our energy technology...

White House Announces $6 Billion to Promote Clean Energy – in Asia
November 20, 2012 – The White House announced the federal government will spend $6 billion over four years for a “sustainable energy future” plan with Asian countries that involves loaning tax dollars to other countries to increase their purchasing power for U.S. technology, services and equipment.

“Recognizing that energy and the environment are among the most pressing issues confronting our region, President Obama, in partnership with Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei and President of the Republic of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, today proposed the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Partnership for a Sustainable Energy Future,” the White House announced Tuesday as Obama visits Asian Pacific countries. The initiative comes after the Obama administration has been criticized for spending billions to subsidize U.S.-based green energy companies that went on to declare bankruptcy, including Solyndra, Ener1, A123, Beacon Power and other failed renewable energy ventures.

The White House announcement goes on to say that, “The United States will provide up to $6 billion to support the partnership.” Most of that will come from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which will launch a $5 billion export credit financing program to certain Asian countries over the next four years “to increase access to American technology, services and equipment to implement energy infrastructure.” The Overseas Private Investment Corps (OPIC) will spend $1 billion in financing for sustainable power and clean energy infrastructure projects in Asia, according to the White House. OPIC is the federal government’s development finance institution that mobilizes private capital with the intent of advancing U.S. foreign policy and getting U.S. companies into emerging markets. The State Department will oversee a $1 million energy capacity building fund to support the U.S.-Asia energy partnership activities.

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency will support Asian power generation and distribution, according to the White House, but the White House news release does not estimate how much money the USTDA will spend on the project. The White House estimates $9 trillion in investment for electricity will be needed through 2035 to meet the increasing demand in the region, which offers potential for U.S. industry. “The Partnership will drive investment and facilitate progress on four key regional priorities: renewables and cleaner energy; markets and interconnectivity; the emerging role of natural gas; and sustainable development,” the White House release said. “We will engage with the private sector as well as partner countries in the region to determine specific projects within these four priority areas.”

Source

 

[Katzndogz]

In parts of India, they still get water from a communal well. Of course in America, some vandal would shit in the well.

Wind power was used for a long time before electricity. If wind power wasn't so ineffecient, it would never have been replaced.

 

[longknife]

Here's an interesting comment from the blog about the subject - escerpted, of course.

kentbeuchert • 4 months ago

I doubt that the study (produced by wind businesses and wind orgs)
was anything other than a cost analysis based on cost of the wind equipment, versus lifespan expectations versus utilization rates. That
ignores the indirect costs that are attendant anytime an uncontrollable
and unreliable power source is allowed to enter the grid. For one, wind cannot allow for the elimination of any existing, controllable generation plants - wind is not always there or in the amounts required, which requires
continuation of those plants. At best, they realize a reduction in the cost
of fuel. All the other costs (maintenance, staffing, cost of facility and land, etc) remain more or less the same, even though they are producing less power. Adding an uncontrollable power source can therefore almost double

He goes on to debunk the so-called science of the original piece.