Wind Power Extreme Costs Hidden, Maintenance, Consumers must pay

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

This article is over a year and one half old. Today, both wind and solar are cheaper than when this was written. Alternative energies are winning on economic basis.

Can I quote you "ARTICLE". It is not cheaper, you take my money from my pocket and put it in the pocket of Wall Street, through taxes and higher electric rates. That is what a generous subsidy is.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire.

 

[elektra]

Emissions from the Cement Industry
A metric ton is about 2205 llbs, and we will use 820 for over 800 metric tons. 2205 X 820/2000 = 904 tons of concrete per mill. These are the large mills, as the 1.5 mW mills only take 150 tons per base. So, 0.2 X 904 = 181 tons of coal per base. A bit less than the 80,000 tons you stated, Elektra. Perhaps a fourth grade class in remedial math would be the ticket for you.

Old Crock is always Cherry Picking to make a point. Old Crock will take the smallest Wind Turbine to make it seem like they consume very little Hydrocarbons in manufacture and installation while in the next post Old Crock will use the largest Wind Turbines to make it seem like they perform better than conventional power.

Which is it Old Crock, you can't have it both ways, are they big or are they small. I certainly made a mistake in this thread, which when pointed out I admit, but will Old Crock admit his deliberate deceit?

Wiggerswug archive of wind power industry articles

A 1.5MW machine, on the small side by today's standards

 

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

This article is over a year and one half old. Today, both wind and solar are cheaper than when this was written. Alternative energies are winning on economic basis.

These Wind Turbines are not the 1.5 mw turbines are they Old Crock, they are twice that size. Old Crock uses the smallest Wind Turbines to state they use little Coal in installation, yet Old Crock then uses the largest to deceive us into believing they are competitive with fossil fuels?

Which is it Old Crock, they are big when you choose, yet small when you choose? Depending on the argument Old Crock wishes to make?

The Tallest Wind Turbines In The U.S. Installed In Texas - MetaEfficient

The tallest wind turbines in the U.S. have been installed in Texas — the Vestas V90 turbines are 345 feet high, and are rated at 3 megawatts each. They are part of the 63 megawatt Snyder Wind Project, a wind farm that’s just been installed in western Texas.

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

This article is over a year and one half old. Today, both wind and solar are cheaper than when this was written. Alternative energies are winning on economic basis.

How much of that was actually from solar and how much from the fossil fuel burning plant built with the solar farm?

And there is no way any energy source that works only part of the time and as with wind only produces 30% or less of the rated output will ever in the long run be less expensive than one that runs 24/7/365

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

 

[Old Rocks]

A couple of things here, Skull. While I like the general tone of the article, the reactors that it is talking about are theoretical, not working designs. And our present reactors have put out enough waste that our storage ponds have 2 to 5 times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. An accident waiting to happen.

Cost is way low balled. There hasn't yet been a reactor built that there was not a vast cost overrun on. While all the time the cost of solar and wind is coming down. Build me one of those reactors, a working design, and bring it in on budget, and with all safety factors in place, and then tell me about it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A couple of things here, Skull. While I like the general tone of the article, the reactors that it is talking about are theoretical, not working designs. And our present reactors have put out enough waste that our storage ponds have 2 to 5 times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. An accident waiting to happen.

Cost is way low balled. There hasn't yet been a reactor built that there was not a vast cost overrun on. While all the time the cost of solar and wind is coming down. Build me one of those reactors, a working design, and bring it in on budget, and with all safety factors in place, and then tell me about it.

There have already been prototypes of the MSR design it would not take much to update them. There have been extensive tests done on integral fast reactors that includes complete shut down of all safety protocols. The reactor is proven to be 100% self limiting
It's hard to compare the costs of reactors that require large tracts of land have huge impact on local water supplies and need large containment domes to one that requires none of these things

You cannot compare the MSRs to current light water reactors for one ALL the spent fuel light water reactors produce can be virtually eliminated via recycling (which we won't do even though it would add billions of dollars of revenue) and using remainder for fuel in next generation reactors.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, whatever a ton of 'hydrocarbon' is, the coal used to produce the power of an average onshore 2.5–3 MW wind turbine over a twenty year lifetime is

6 million kWh x 20 years = 120 million kWh lifetime onshore 2.5–3 MW wind turbine electricity production

divided by 1904 kWh/ton of coal = 63,025 tons of coal.

Nice figures, making a ton of cement is equal to 400 tons of coal, your Wind Turbine uses 1,000 tons of concrete for its base, or given the standard 5:1 ratio, 200 tons of cement.

80,000 tons of Coal is needed just for the Concrete in one Wind Turbine's base.
Looks to me, that one Wind Turbine never recoups the energy just for the base? How many tons of coal does it take to make the tower? The blades, the nacelle, the bearings, the gearbox?

Emissions from the Cement Industry

Cement manufacturing is highly energy – and – emissions intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a tonof CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to society, cement is an obvious place to look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Emissions from the Cement Industry

Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal,

So, 400 lbs per ton of concrete. Or 0.2 ton coal per ton Concrete.

NextEra Energy uses over 800 metric tons of concrete per wind turbine

NextEra Energy uses over 800 metric tons of concrete for each turbine they construct, with investments worth $1.7 billion and 8 wind projects in Ontario, also adding more jobs in the concrete industry.

A metric ton is about 2205 llbs, and we will use 820 for over 800 metric tons. 2205 X 820/2000 = 904 tons of concrete per mill. These are the large mills, as the 1.5 mW mills only take 150 tons per base. So, 0.2 X 904 = 181 tons of coal per base. A bit less than the 80,000 tons you stated, Elektra. Perhaps a fourth grade class in remedial math would be the ticket for you.

I certainly made a mistake there, old crock, you got me once. Gloat while you can. I took inadvertently used tons and lbs.

But unlike you, I have not ran from my mistakes or where I am completely wrong, Old Crock, you on the other hand simply ignore everything you are wrong about.

LOL. You certainly made more than one mistake.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Elektra;
1 amp equals 12 watts, if using Wind Turbines it takes 3 amps to equal 1 watt, or 36 amps to create 12 watts, given the capacity factor.
....................................................................................................................................................................
Wattage is measured by Amps times Volts. W = IR, Watts equals current times potential differance, current measured in Amps, potential differance in Volts. High school stuff, grade school for the brighter students. Apparently not required for a Nuclear Technician. I don't think that I want to see any more nukes built if you are typical for nuclear technicians.

 

[Old Rocks]

A couple of things here, Skull. While I like the general tone of the article, the reactors that it is talking about are theoretical, not working designs. And our present reactors have put out enough waste that our storage ponds have 2 to 5 times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. An accident waiting to happen.

Cost is way low balled. There hasn't yet been a reactor built that there was not a vast cost overrun on. While all the time the cost of solar and wind is coming down. Build me one of those reactors, a working design, and bring it in on budget, and with all safety factors in place, and then tell me about it.

There have already been prototypes of the MSR design it would not take much to update them. There have been extensive tests done on integral fast reactors that includes complete shut down of all safety protocols. The reactor is proven to be 100% self limiting
It's hard to compare the costs of reactors that require large tracts of land have huge impact on local water supplies and need large containment domes to one that requires none of these things

You cannot compare the MSRs to current light water reactors for one ALL the spent fuel light water reactors produce can be virtually eliminated via recycling (which we won't do even though it would add billions of dollars of revenue) and using remainder for fuel in next generation reactors.

While I hope you are correct, I have been down this road before. In the 50's, they sold us on nuclear power, stating that it was completely fail safe, and would be too cheap to meter. Both of which turned out to be smoke up our asses.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A couple of things here, Skull. While I like the general tone of the article, the reactors that it is talking about are theoretical, not working designs. And our present reactors have put out enough waste that our storage ponds have 2 to 5 times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. An accident waiting to happen.

Cost is way low balled. There hasn't yet been a reactor built that there was not a vast cost overrun on. While all the time the cost of solar and wind is coming down. Build me one of those reactors, a working design, and bring it in on budget, and with all safety factors in place, and then tell me about it.

There have already been prototypes of the MSR design it would not take much to update them. There have been extensive tests done on integral fast reactors that includes complete shut down of all safety protocols. The reactor is proven to be 100% self limiting
It's hard to compare the costs of reactors that require large tracts of land have huge impact on local water supplies and need large containment domes to one that requires none of these things

You cannot compare the MSRs to current light water reactors for one ALL the spent fuel light water reactors produce can be virtually eliminated via recycling (which we won't do even though it would add billions of dollars of revenue) and using remainder for fuel in next generation reactors.

While I hope you are correct, I have been down this road before. In the 50's, they sold us on nuclear power, stating that it was completely fail safe, and would be too cheap to meter. Both of which turned out to be smoke up our asses.

Yeah I often compare technology from 6 decades ago to current technology

Besides the safety record of nuclear power in this country is still far better than any other large scale form of energy we have ever used

 

[Old Rocks]

Same industry making the same promises. Yes, the safety record in this nation of nuclear is enviable. However, that does not diminish the threat from a large accident. Or something like the New Madrid fault letting loose, and shaking some of those overloaded rod pools to the point that the rods are no longer separated.

If the gen 3 and gen 4 reactors operate as advertised, that will no longer be threat, and I would like to see that. But am not holding my breath.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

This article is over a year and one half old. Today, both wind and solar are cheaper than when this was written. Alternative energies are winning on economic basis.

These Wind Turbines are not the 1.5 mw turbines are they Old Crock, they are twice that size. Old Crock uses the smallest Wind Turbines to state they use little Coal in installation, yet Old Crock then uses the largest to deceive us into believing they are competitive with fossil fuels?

Which is it Old Crock, they are big when you choose, yet small when you choose? Depending on the argument Old Crock wishes to make?

The Tallest Wind Turbines In The U.S. Installed In Texas - MetaEfficient

The tallest wind turbines in the U.S. have been installed in Texas — the Vestas V90 turbines are 345 feet high, and are rated at 3 megawatts each. They are part of the 63 megawatt Snyder Wind Project, a wind farm that’s just been installed in western Texas.

Elektra, you are a silly ass. As I pointed out, the base for the 1.5 mW mills take about 150 tons of concrete. But the bases I did the math on were for the big mills that tool over 900 tons per base. And that came out to 181 tons of coal per base. I can still do fourth grade math, apparently you cannot.

 

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

This article is over a year and one half old. Today, both wind and solar are cheaper than when this was written. Alternative energies are winning on economic basis.

These Wind Turbines are not the 1.5 mw turbines are they Old Crock, they are twice that size. Old Crock uses the smallest Wind Turbines to state they use little Coal in installation, yet Old Crock then uses the largest to deceive us into believing they are competitive with fossil fuels?

Which is it Old Crock, they are big when you choose, yet small when you choose? Depending on the argument Old Crock wishes to make?

The Tallest Wind Turbines In The U.S. Installed In Texas - MetaEfficient

The tallest wind turbines in the U.S. have been installed in Texas — the Vestas V90 turbines are 345 feet high, and are rated at 3 megawatts each. They are part of the 63 megawatt Snyder Wind Project, a wind farm that’s just been installed in western Texas.

Elektra, you are a silly ass. As I pointed out, the base for the 1.5 mW mills take about 150 tons of concrete. But the bases I did the math on were for the big mills that tool over 900 tons per base. And that came out to 181 tons of coal per base. I can still do fourth grade math, apparently you cannot.

Yes, we all understand you are proud you made it to the 4th grade, had you actually graduated high school you could write clearer so that we could understand.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well for sure I know that an Amp does not equal 12 Watts. LOL W = IV

 

[elektra]

Wattage is measured by Amps times Volts. W = IR, Watts equals current times potential differance, current measured in Amps, potential differance in Volts. High school stuff, grade school for the brighter students. Apparently not required for a Nuclear Technician. I don't think that I want to see any more nukes built if you are typical for nuclear technicians.

Actually it as easy as pie, what is the "r" in your formula? Resistance?

P=IE

You are not so smart with your 4th grade education. I times R gives us E

Care to move on

 

[elektra]

Well for sure I know that an Amp does not equal 12 Watts. LOL W = IV

1 amp times 12 volts equals what?

 

[elektra]

I bet Old Crock doesn't come back and admit he was wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Same industry making the same promises. Yes, the safety record in this nation of nuclear is enviable. However, that does not diminish the threat from a large accident. Or something like the New Madrid fault letting loose, and shaking some of those overloaded rod pools to the point that the rods are no longer separated.

If the gen 3 and gen 4 reactors operate as advertised, that will no longer be threat, and I would like to see that. But am not holding my breath.

The integral fast reactor has already been proven to be completely self limiting yet the fears of people like yourself who claim to be ruled by science and fact put the kibosh on the design

 

[elektra]

Well for sure I know that an Amp does not equal 12 Watts. LOL W = IV

And the formula is P=!E
Power is expressed in watts
Current or I, is amps
Voltage or Electromotive force, hence the E, the unit is v.

But in formulas, we like to use E, for Volts.
Now try this one Old Crock and at the same time tell us how this is used in the supposed steel foundry you worked at.