How much can renewable energy save us?

[danielpalos]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.

The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.

federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.

The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report.

Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me

Capital intensive costs should go down, once the infrastructure is established.

 

[danielpalos]

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change. Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.

so you're a denier
good to know

if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?

 

[Skull Pilot]

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?

If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade

If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with

 

[danielpalos]

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change. Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.

so you're a denier
good to know

if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

wind power is simply that, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?

If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade

If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with

not even, depleted radioactive stuff?

 

[Skull Pilot]

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change. Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.

so you're a denier
good to know

if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

wind power is simply that, dear.

why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year

 

[Skull Pilot]

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

are you a stakeholder in the Arms sector?

If you knew anything about nuclear weapons you would now that reactor fuel isn't even close to weapons grade

If you knew anything about next generation reactors you would know that they use the spent fuel from all of our outdated light water reactors that we currently don't know what to do with

not even, depleted radioactive stuff?

look up weapons grade nuclear material

 

[Old Rocks]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.

The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.

federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.

The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report.

Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me

Since there are plenty of sources for the present cost of wind per mw/hr, why do you chose to use one that is nearly four years old?

 

[Old Rocks]

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.

The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.

federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.

The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report.

Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me

Since there are plenty of sources for the present cost of wind per mw/hr, why do you chose to use one that is nearly four years old?

because it's based on real data not merely "installed capacity" which are the only numbers you use

 

[Skull Pilot]

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.

wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.

The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor

well it seems like China and Canada both have plans to build one in and the US DOE is helping them. So rather than taking the lead and building one ourselves so as to gain a global foothold on the tech, we in our uniquely shortsighted way will help someone else do it at some great expense and then come late to the party simply because we don't have the political will to take the lead

Under director Alvin Weinberg, Oak Ridge had built and run a small, experimental version of the so-called molten-salt reactor for five years. It wasn't perfect but it was a good start, and inventor Weinberg was preparing to improve it. Then Nixon's axe fell, leaving Oak Ridge all dressed up and nowhere to go as the keeper of a valuable, clean, safe nuclear energy technology—a technology that today could go a long way toward moving the world onto a much needed source of power that doesn't emit carbon dioxide.

Decades later, the U.S. Department of Energy (which owns Oak Ridge) is slowly reawakening to Weinberg's vision. But this time, rather than build a molten-salt reactor itself—the country currently lacks the political will and funding to do so—the U.S. is helping others.

Fortune has learned that DOE plans to sign a 10-year collaboration agreement with China to help that country build at least one molten-salt machine within the next decade. And in a smaller development, Oak Ridge publicly announced in January that it will advise Terrestrial Energy, a privately held Canadian start-up, on development of a molten-salt reactor that draws on Weinberg designs and on the reactor scheme that briefly hatched at Oak Ridge after Weinberg left.

 

[danielpalos]

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change. Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.

so you're a denier
good to know

if you don't think people hae anything to do with climate change then why do you care about wind power so much?

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

wind power is simply that, dear.

why not just burn coal, gas and oil if emissions don't matter then we wouldn't have to spend any money upgrading the grid and we could end all tax subsidies for wind and solar and save billions of dollars a year

if it were that easy; we would be resorting to our Commerce Clause and improving infrastructure in the Middle East, to lower our cost of fuels.

the right wing prefers their fantasy "game theory" of a "common offense" and "general warfare"; and, complain about Taxes instead of being, Patriotic. That is why.

 

[sealybobo]

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.

wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.

But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

I don't get why you put out that stupid line. Wind and solar are economically feasable right now, and becoming more so every day. Your nuclear is just a pipe dream. No one is building the little reactors you speak of, in this or any other nation.

wind is not feasible without the tax subsidies.

But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need. Coal is not infinite. I would think we would want to conserve coal and oil

But it's cleaner and renewable. We have all the wind we need.

If it's more expensive and less reliable, why is renewable a selling point?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is not more expensive. It is also getting less expensive every day, while coal is getting more expensive every day. Not just in money, but also in destruction of environment.

Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)
The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are hugely subsidized in those charts.

A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.

On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included. Once that is a significant issue (at which point solar and wind will be even cheaper), low-cost demand response solutions, greater grid integration, and storage will be key solutions to integrating these lower-cost renewable sources to a high degree.

Back to Lazard’s assumptions, note that the IGCC and coal cost estimates do not include the costs of transportation and storage.

Given these assumptions unrealistically favoring fossil fuels and nuclear energy, including subsidies for solar and wind is actually an even better way to look at costs of these electricity options. However, if you included historical subsidies as well — coal, natural gas, and nuclear have received a ton (well, many, many tons of subsidies) — dirty energy options would again look worse. In any case, here’s Lazard’s cost comparisons with current subsidies:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not more expensive.

Right. That's why every place that has a lot of it, has more expensive, not less expensive, electricity.

 

[danielpalos]

and then there's this

Sheerwind Invelox: All Hype, No Substance

In summary

Sheerwind makes radically inappropriate comparisons between their long-disproven approach to wind generation and actually useful wind generation. The numbers show that they are likely about eighteen times worse at generating electricity from moving air than a truly equivalent wind turbine would be, and will require an order of magnitude more material to achieve that.

The claims that they make aren’t supported by their own data, and their data is distorted beyond credible defence. Their device will produce much less electricity at much greater cost than conventional wind generators.

Potential investors: stay away. Current investors: don’t expect to see your money again.

darn.

There is still, a lot of vaporware out there.

However, technology is still, improving all the time.

Even classical, wind turbine technology is improving and achieving gains from efficiencies.

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

Silly ass, if the windmill produces electricity at half the cost of the coal fired plant, then it is a good investment. Not only that, the dropping cost of the grid storage batteries will make both solar and wind 24/7.

Sorry but the only reason to build windmills are the tax subsidies

Warren Buffet, the left's favorite Wall street mogul agrees

technology is improving all the time. it is still free.

 

[danielpalos]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

fusion (a natural energy with a natural future) will be better.