America’s wind energy industry is booming

[Skull Pilot]

What is important is the cost per kw/hr.

Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels - MEIC

Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels

In Montana, wind energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, especially coal. In fact, wind energy is less much less expensive than coal for customers of NorthWestern Energy – the state’s largest utility. The graph below comes from data from the Montana Public Service Commission and it compares the costs of various resources in NorthWestern’s portfolio. The Judith Gap wind facility is about $32.11 per megawatt-hour (or 3.1 cents per kilowatt-hour) while the coal-fired Colstrip Unit 4 is about $64.55 per megawatt-hour or (6.4 cents per kilowatt hour).

Wind power in Montana is less than half the price of coal generated power. So who cares if the wind towers are only putting out a fraction of their rated power, if that fraction is cheaper electricity per kw/hr.

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

And the point is that you have to install 4 times as many windmills to get the installed capacity to equal power output until wind is operating at 90% rated capacity it will never be as reliable as other power sources

 

[tecoyah]

The use of multiple energy sources is required in the renewable energy concept and government subsidy is not required (though important at this stage) as it certainly is with petroleum based and coal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The use of multiple energy sources is required in the renewable energy concept and government subsidy is not required (though important at this stage) as it certainly is with petroleum based and coal.

Is an intermittent power source that runs at 25% capacity a worthwhile investment ?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Cannot answer to the fact the by the kw/hr, wind is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. So you resort to percentage of installed capacity, ignoring the fact that it is the cost per kw/hr that the customer pays. Yes, if it runs at 25% capacity, and that 25% is cheaper than the electricity from the fossil fuel plant running at 90% capacity, then the power from the windmills are a very good deal.

As for the intermittancy, not a problem in the very near future as there are a bunch of very technological savvy people installing and building grid scale storage right now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL Cannot answer to the fact the by the kw/hr, wind is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. So you resort to percentage of installed capacity, ignoring the fact that it is the cost per kw/hr that the customer pays. Yes, if it runs at 25% capacity, and that 25% is cheaper than the electricity from the fossil fuel plant running at 90% capacity, then the power from the windmills are a very good deal.

As for the intermittancy, not a problem in the very near future as there are a bunch of very technological savvy people installing and building grid scale storage right now.

You of course refuse to even factor in the return on investment of wind turbines because like all your numbers that is also based on installed capacity. A wind turbine that produces 25% of its rated capacity will never produce enough salable power so as to recoup the cost if its purchase and installation especially since the life span of a turbine is only 20 years.

It just doesn't make any economic sense to go all in on wind power as you want to do

Wind will never be able to provide enough power to meet our needs today never mind in the future.

You do realize that getting off of fossil fuels will most likely triple our electricity needs in the future as electricity becomes the standard for heating, transportation, and industrial processes.

And you do realize that battery production on the scale you want is extremely environmentally unfriendly don't you? What are the usable life spans of those batteries? How much do they cost and what will that cost add to the price of electricity?

And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the failure of wind power in Europe tells me that you are nothing but a pie in the sky idealist moron rather than being pragmatic and realistic

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

And tell me what has happened to electricity prices in Germany since they decided to go all in on "renewable" power?

Hint: They sure as hell haven't gone down

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, Skull, why don't you just hie your silly ass down to Texas and tell them all about why the wind farms don's work?

Wind Power In Texas: Not Just Hot Air - Law360

Texas’ total wind electricity production — and wind energy share as a percentage of total net generation — is also expected to continue to rise in the coming years, as investment in wind generation nationwide, and particularly in the state, continues to expand.

Indeed, on Nov. 29, 2016, Spanish wind energy giant Gamesa announced that it was awarded a contract to supply 75 additional 2.1 megawatt (MW) turbines to Terna Energy, a Greek renewable energy company, for the development of another wind farm in the lower Texas Panhandle near Fluvanna (for additional capacity totaling 155 MW), the financing for which closed on Dec. 16. Delivery and commissioning are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2017.

The EIA’s report is based on annual wind energy production, but this does not take into account changing wind energy production levels on a daily basis. For example, on Nov. 27, 2016, Texas set a new record for wind power generation.

According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the electric grid operator for the state of Texas, wind farms that day were providing approximately 15,000 MW of electricity, which accounted for about 45 percent of the total demand for electric power at the time, far exceeding the 9.9 percent annual figure for Texas in 2015.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My, my, Skull, why don't you just hie your silly ass down to Texas and tell them all about why the wind farms don's work?

Wind Power In Texas: Not Just Hot Air - Law360

Texas’ total wind electricity production — and wind energy share as a percentage of total net generation — is also expected to continue to rise in the coming years, as investment in wind generation nationwide, and particularly in the state, continues to expand.

Indeed, on Nov. 29, 2016, Spanish wind energy giant Gamesa announced that it was awarded a contract to supply 75 additional 2.1 megawatt (MW) turbines to Terna Energy, a Greek renewable energy company, for the development of another wind farm in the lower Texas Panhandle near Fluvanna (for additional capacity totaling 155 MW), the financing for which closed on Dec. 16. Delivery and commissioning are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2017.

The EIA’s report is based on annual wind energy production, but this does not take into account changing wind energy production levels on a daily basis. For example, on Nov. 27, 2016, Texas set a new record for wind power generation.

According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the electric grid operator for the state of Texas, wind farms that day were providing approximately 15,000 MW of electricity, which accounted for about 45 percent of the total demand for electric power at the time, far exceeding the 9.9 percent annual figure for Texas in 2015.

The billions spent on wind still can't come close to meeting today's demand never mind the future demand as we phase out of fossil fuels altogether

Germany learned that lesson the hard way and hod to build NEW coal fired plants to make up for the decommissioned emission free nuclear plants they used to have.

Wind will NEVER EVER meet our current demands for power never mind the greatly increased future demands we will see as we eliminate fossil fuels

And tell me why is electricity in France where almost 80% of its electric power is nuclear costs so much less than Germany' electricity?

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27

Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe

To 2010.

 

[Old Rocks]

Eight nations that have the most wind power.

France 2.4%
Canada 2.6%
United Kingdom 3.1%
Spain 5.3%
India 5.8%
Germany 10.4%
US 17.2%
China 33.6%

8 Countries that Produce the Most Wind Energy in the World | REVE

The percentages are each nations share of the total wind produced electricity in the world.

 

[mamooth]

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

$5+ trillion a year for fossil fuels.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Still Total More Than $5 Trillion Annually

Global subsidies for all renewable energy are less than $100 billion per year.

So, fossil fuels get subsidized over 50 times more. If subsidies went away, wind power would be much more attractive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27

Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe

To 2010.

And why does electricity cost so much more in Germany with their dedication to wind power than in France where almost 80% of their electricity is nuclear?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

$5+ trillion a year for fossil fuels.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Still Total More Than $5 Trillion Annually

Global subsidies for all renewable energy are less than $100 billion per year.

So, fossil fuels get subsidized over 50 times more. If subsidies went away, wind power would be much more attractive.

What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

$5+ trillion a year for fossil fuels.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Still Total More Than $5 Trillion Annually

Global subsidies for all renewable energy are less than $100 billion per year.

So, fossil fuels get subsidized over 50 times more. If subsidies went away, wind power would be much more attractive.

Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.

 

[Old Rocks]

Skull, you dumb ****, not getting taxed for the air pollution created by fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy. Were the coal companies to have to pay for the health problems that their product creates among the population, you would see them go out of business tomorrow. They can kill the rest of us for their profit, and you approve of that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, you dumb ****, not getting taxed for the air pollution created by fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy. Were the coal companies to have to pay for the health problems that their product creates among the population, you would see them go out of business tomorrow. They can kill the rest of us for their profit, and you approve of that.

No they are getting taxed to subsidize the wind installation and that wind power proved to be so unreliable that Germany actually had to build NEW coal fired power stations to make up for their decommissioning of emission free nuclear power plants

Not only did they build new coal fired plants but the have to be kept running at all times because the lag in time needed to ramp them up to full production would cause major power disruptions when the wind stops blowing

Yeah that's a real good for the environment

 

[Old Rocks]

Tesla To Install World’s Largest Grid-Scale Battery In South Australia
July 7th, 2017 by Steve Hanley

Tesla has announced that it will install the world’s largest grid-scale battery — 100 MW/129 MWh — in South Australia. The installation will be located in Jamestown in the north of the Australian state and will receive electricity to be stored from a wind farm operated by French energy company Neoen. Tesla broke the news late yesterday and CEO Elon Musk retweeted it out.


Follow
Elon Musk

✔@elonmusk
This will be the highest power battery system in the world by a factor of 3. Australia rocks!! https://twitter.com/teslamotors/status/883163847594360833 …

8:42 PM - Jul 6, 2017

• 
  1,5341,534 Replies
  
• 
  9,7749,774 Retweets
  
• 
  35,42135,421 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy




The story of how this project came to be is a fascinating tale. On September 28, 2016, freakishly high winds swept across South Australia, home to the city of Adelaide. The storm toppled a number of towers supporting the region’s high-voltage power lines, some of which connected South Australia to generating facilities in nearby Victoria. In the aftermath, members of the Australian government from the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, on down inexplicably blamed the blackout on too much renewable energy surging through its electrical grid.

This reaction came despite a statement by Australian Energy Market Operator, the grid operator, which categorically denied that renewable energy had anything to do with the blackout:

“There has been unprecedented damage to the network (i.e., bigger than any other event in Australia), with 20+ steel transmission towers down in the north of the State due to wind damage (between Adelaide and Port Augusta).

“The electricity network was unable to cope with such a sudden and large loss of generation at once.

“Australian Energy Market Operator’s advice is that the generation mix (i.e., renewable or fossil fuel) was not to blame for yesterday’s events — it was the loss of 1000MW of power in such a short space of time as transmission lines fell over.”

That statement was pretty clear, no? Nonetheless, it didn’t stop anti-renewables talking heads and media outlets from politicizing the unprecedented event.

Tesla To Install World’s Largest Grid-Scale Battery In South Australia

Just the beginning.

 

[Old Rocks]

Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine
July 18th, 2017 by Steve Hanley


Flow batteries offer significant advantages over lithium-ion batteries. They have a much longer lifespan, can be fully discharged and recharged many thousand of times without damage, and have no danger of explosion or fire due to overheating. They also tend to be heavy and bulky, which makes them unsuitable for use in automotive applications.

Known to the scientific community as redox (reduction oxidation) batteries, they involve two tanks of liquid — one positively charged and one negatively charged — separated by a membrane which allows electrons to pass between the two tanks but not molecules. In the right setting, they can store prodigious amounts of electricity safely and inexpensively.

German utility company EWE says it is planning to build the world’s largest battery based on flow technology in a pair of salt caves currently used to store natural gas. Taken together, the caves have a volume of 3.5 million cubic feet — enough to store up to 700 megawatt-hours of electricity with an output capacity of 12o megawatts, according to Digital Trends.

To put that into perspective, a battery with that much capacity could meet the electrical energy needs of the city of Berlin for an hour or 75,000 homes for a day. “We need to carry out some more tests and clarify several issues before we can use the storage principle indicated by the University of Jena in underground caverns. However, I expect that we will have an operating cavern battery by about the end of 2023,” says Ralf Riekenberg, head of the project, which has been named brine4power.

World’s Biggest Grid-Scale Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine

As these batteries become more efficient and cheaper, they will replace the coal fire plants around the world. And you will see much more wind and solar. That is clear right now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine
July 18th, 2017 by Steve Hanley


Flow batteries offer significant advantages over lithium-ion batteries. They have a much longer lifespan, can be fully discharged and recharged many thousand of times without damage, and have no danger of explosion or fire due to overheating. They also tend to be heavy and bulky, which makes them unsuitable for use in automotive applications.

Known to the scientific community as redox (reduction oxidation) batteries, they involve two tanks of liquid — one positively charged and one negatively charged — separated by a membrane which allows electrons to pass between the two tanks but not molecules. In the right setting, they can store prodigious amounts of electricity safely and inexpensively.

German utility company EWE says it is planning to build the world’s largest battery based on flow technology in a pair of salt caves currently used to store natural gas. Taken together, the caves have a volume of 3.5 million cubic feet — enough to store up to 700 megawatt-hours of electricity with an output capacity of 12o megawatts, according to Digital Trends.

To put that into perspective, a battery with that much capacity could meet the electrical energy needs of the city of Berlin for an hour or 75,000 homes for a day. “We need to carry out some more tests and clarify several issues before we can use the storage principle indicated by the University of Jena in underground caverns. However, I expect that we will have an operating cavern battery by about the end of 2023,” says Ralf Riekenberg, head of the project, which has been named brine4power.

World’s Biggest Grid-Scale Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine

As these batteries become more efficient and cheaper, they will replace the coal fire plants around the world. And you will see much more wind and solar. That is clear right now.

you believe this yet you discount a molten salt reactor that actually existed and has been proven to work and that the US is currently working with China to develop.

 

[Slash]

Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.

You see it's things like these that wreck your argument and take it from a logical argument to one that is biased.

(It's probably less). What is that based on? Are you bringing up a topic you have experience with or knowledge of, or just making a wild assumption with no evidence to back it up and hoping nobody calls you out on it? Like saying "Coal plants (that probably kill babies) aren't very efficient." I'd better have evidence for my claim.

Can they meet the worlds energy needs? According to studies at Stanford and U of Delaware, yes... The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available. The world uses about 7 terawatts of power currently.




Yes there are energy losses along the way. That is a topic that coal supporters usually shy away from seeing as coal plants in the US tend to be the least efficient source of energy, which is a big reason why they are going away. You can see that worldwide, China, US, Japan....

The issue is with wind energy, you are taking wind and turning a generator with it. With coal, you first have to burn the coal, then use that energy to heat up a water source, then using high pressure steam turn the turbine that powers the generator, then pump millions of gallons of cool water through piping to use as a condenser and turn the steam back into water to use again. It's why Lazard's study (a top asset management firm in US) showed that wind energy unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized was less expensive than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

No one is saying "just shut down every coal, gas, nuclear and other plant in the world in 10 years and make it 100% wind". But shutting down the most polluting, least efficient, and most costly ones that need major rebuilds? Of course if we have the power from wind and other sources to take that over. Why fight to build something inefficient and costly like more coal plants?

 

[Slash]

Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27

Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe

To 2010.

And why does electricity cost so much more in Germany with their dedication to wind power than in France where almost 80% of their electricity is nuclear?

Interesting. I'd say the high cost of fossil fuel energy. France mostly uses fossil fuels for when their reactors are down to supplement the lost energy like they did last year when shutting down lots of their nuclear plants for inspection, they fired up their coal plants and energy costs spiked. France gets less than 8% of their energy from fossil fuels. Germany meanwhile is HEAVILY invested in coal, and gets about 55.6% of their energy from Fossil fuels.

France Burns Coal Like It's 1984 as Prices Jump on Atomic Woes

Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.

You see it's things like these that wreck your argument and take it from a logical argument to one that is biased.

(It's probably less). What is that based on? Are you bringing up a topic you have experience with or knowledge of, or just making a wild assumption with no evidence to back it up and hoping nobody calls you out on it? Like saying "Coal plants (that probably kill babies) aren't very efficient." I'd better have evidence for my claim.

Can they meet the worlds energy needs? According to studies at Stanford and U of Delaware, yes... The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available. The world uses about 7 terawatts of power currently.




Yes there are energy losses along the way. That is a topic that coal supporters usually shy away from seeing as coal plants in the US tend to be the least efficient source of energy, which is a big reason why they are going away. You can see that worldwide, China, US, Japan....

The issue is with wind energy, you are taking wind and turning a generator with it. With coal, you first have to burn the coal, then use that energy to heat up a water source, then using high pressure steam turn the turbine that powers the generator, then pump millions of gallons of cool water through piping to use as a condenser and turn the steam back into water to use again. It's why Lazard's study (a top asset management firm in US) showed that wind energy unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized was less expensive than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

No one is saying "just shut down every coal, gas, nuclear and other plant in the world in 10 years and make it 100% wind". But shutting down the most polluting, least efficient, and most costly ones that need major rebuilds? Of course if we have the power from wind and other sources to take that over. Why fight to build something inefficient and costly like more coal plants?

Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.

You see it's things like these that wreck your argument and take it from a logical argument to one that is biased.

(It's probably less). What is that based on? Are you bringing up a topic you have experience with or knowledge of, or just making a wild assumption with no evidence to back it up and hoping nobody calls you out on it? Like saying "Coal plants (that probably kill babies) aren't very efficient." I'd better have evidence for my claim.

Can they meet the worlds energy needs? According to studies at Stanford and U of Delaware, yes... The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available. The world uses about 7 terawatts of power currently.




Yes there are energy losses along the way. That is a topic that coal supporters usually shy away from seeing as coal plants in the US tend to be the least efficient source of energy, which is a big reason why they are going away. You can see that worldwide, China, US, Japan....

The issue is with wind energy, you are taking wind and turning a generator with it. With coal, you first have to burn the coal, then use that energy to heat up a water source, then using high pressure steam turn the turbine that powers the generator, then pump millions of gallons of cool water through piping to use as a condenser and turn the steam back into water to use again. It's why Lazard's study (a top asset management firm in US) showed that wind energy unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized was less expensive than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

No one is saying "just shut down every coal, gas, nuclear and other plant in the world in 10 years and make it 100% wind". But shutting down the most polluting, least efficient, and most costly ones that need major rebuilds? Of course if we have the power from wind and other sources to take that over. Why fight to build something inefficient and costly like more coal plants?

real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity

And here is where the probably less as regarding lifespan of a wind turbine comes from.
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.



I never said we should build more coal plants.

If we want a 100% fossil fuel free energy supply it doesn't make sense to base it on intermittent power sources?

As we move from fossil fuels our electricity demand will skyrocket as homes are heated with electricity rather than oil or gas, transportation and industrial processes switching to electricity will be the biggest requirement.

And then there is the security of the grid and our generating you are talking about long distance transmission for much of our power supply not to mention the as of yet proven to be worthwhile grid scale battery storage.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think nuclear power is the best option.