Is Wind Power on par with Fossil Fuels?

[Old Rocks]

So that is why all those hyper-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma are installing windmills by the thousands.

Wind power is now being installed for less than 4 cents a kw, that is unsubsidized cost, and the price is still going down. In the meantime, the price of dirty coal, is 6.6, and going up. Solar, unsubsidized, is now cheaper than dirty coal. Civilization has moved on, in spite of the cries of agony from the 'Conservatives' of this world.

Maybe it has something to do with tax credits.

The fact is that wind only produces about 30% of its nominal rating so you may say that we installed 100 gigawatts of wind power but in actuality you'll only get 30

So now adjust the price of the install to what the output actually is rather than the nominal rating on the equipment and then see what the true cost is

Overestimating Wind Power Generation From the UK to New York State - Master Resource

They are buying a lot of wind power in Oklahoma, unsubsidized, you really think the utility does not have a realistic estimate of how much power the mills will actually produce?

 

[Old Rocks]

None of you put any value on wind power because you think there's no need for it and it takes money from the wallets of your buddies in the fossil fuel industry. We see value because it uses no fuel and produces no carbon emission. We see an active effort to REPLACE fossil fuel with non-carbon producing altenatives - an effort we feel worth capital expenditures. You don't. Under the direction of your fossil fuel overlords, you insist that these alternative energy technologies must compete on a level playing field. But competition was never the point. The point is to replace fossil fuels because they are ruining the planet and for the sake of our children it's time to move on. Abbot, like the rest of you, will come to be known as dangerous fools; pawns of the fossil fuel industry who uses you to maintain its wealth at the expense of the health of the planet.

And Straight Pride? Proud of what?

Wind is crap, expensive, and damages the ecosystems where they are placed killing wildlife. The low frequency hum causes psychotic episodes in animals and humans. It is not carbon neutral with neodine magnets, high tensile strength steel, the lubrication and other maintenance costs which just one coal fired plant could be run on the cost of two wind mills per year.

Carbon neutral my ass. they are expensive piles of unreliable junk which must have Coal fired plants on line to back up (consuming the same amounts of fuel as they would under the load) so that you can say that wind is doing its job. Dump the dam turbines and use the power plants. Save yourself a whole lot of money and create less damage to our environment.

Links, Mr. Billy Bob, or stand a liar. Credible links.

Hey old rocks, you are big on grid scale battery, was reading this article today and can't figure out how hydro power stores wind power energy to use latter.

Wind power generates 140 of Denmark s electricity demand Environment The Guardian

Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later.

Where you have a strong land relief, when the mills are producing excess power, you use it to pump water up to a resevoir. When there is a lack of wind, you run the water through a turbine at the bottom of the grade. Works well where you have good topographical relief. You can use that system at a distance, but lose a percentage of the power through transmission. And you have to have water, not going to work very well in California at present.

One of the reasons I am enthusiastic about the promise of grid scale batteries is that they also solve another problem. 'Bumps' on the line cause our Programmable Logic Circuits to lose their little minds. And it takes up to three hours to get everything back on line. That is production lost that costs hundreds of dollars per minute. If we had a 2 Mw/hr battery between us and the grid, we would never feel the bumps. Plus, when we lose power for hours from a storm, or blow up at a substation, we would be able to take the mill down softly, and not lose any plate.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So that is why all those hyper-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma are installing windmills by the thousands.

Wind power is now being installed for less than 4 cents a kw, that is unsubsidized cost, and the price is still going down. In the meantime, the price of dirty coal, is 6.6, and going up. Solar, unsubsidized, is now cheaper than dirty coal. Civilization has moved on, in spite of the cries of agony from the 'Conservatives' of this world.

Maybe it has something to do with tax credits.

The fact is that wind only produces about 30% of its nominal rating so you may say that we installed 100 gigawatts of wind power but in actuality you'll only get 30

So now adjust the price of the install to what the output actually is rather than the nominal rating on the equipment and then see what the true cost is

Overestimating Wind Power Generation From the UK to New York State - Master Resource

They are buying a lot of wind power in Oklahoma, unsubsidized, you really think the utility does not have a realistic estimate of how much power the mills will actually produce?

I showed you how it worked in the UK what makes you think it would be any different here? What is it that you know that the people in the UK didn't know about wind power? They've done it they have the results and yet you still say it's better than it really is

tax credits aren't subsidies.

The results in the UK were even worse than 30% I was being generous in actuality you'd see if you read the article that it was under 27%

If we use your 4 cent /KW cost then for a 1,000,000 KW system it would be 40000 dollars but since you only get 30% output then your actual cost per KW is

40000/300000 or 13.33 cents per KW

And let's remember that the real number will probably be less than 27% output

40000/270000 = 14.8 cents /KW

Why is it that you people never do the math?

 

[SSDD]

Cost effective my ass... Jesus dude take your camper and drive through Texas and see the huge wind mill farms for yourself. I am neutral on this subject because I know it has it's place, besides it provides good paying jobs, to manufacture and maintain.

Actually it provides jobs paid for by government subsidies....not actual money paid to employees as a result of running a profitable business. Like I said, you lefties don't know jack about the real world.

 

[SSDD]

East of the Columbia Gorge, the land is filled with windmills. They stand in the wheat fields, and wheat grows right up to the base. So in lean times, the farmer has a cushion, and in good times, sees a real profit. Win, win for everybody.

And he gets all the dead raptors, bats, and migratory birds he can use for fertilizer.

 

[HenryBHough]

There ARE applications where wind power is A #1.

For those who feel it's "one size fits all" then I suggest you detail your reasoning below in Eperanto - the one language that fits all!

 

[SSDD]

There ARE applications where wind power is A #1.

For those who feel it's "one size fits all" then I suggest you detail your reasoning below in Eperanto - the one language that fits all!

Sure...for very small scale operations...or off grid operations....but wind has no place on a grid as evidenced by the fact that if there weren't an assload of subsidies and tax credits, no one would be trying to put wind on the grid.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sure...for very small scale operations...or off grid operations....but wind has no place on a grid as evidenced by the fact that if there weren't an assload of subsidies and tax credits, no one would be trying to put wind on the grid.

The key word is "grid". The term "THE grid" is misleading. I have worked on projects involving A grid which is not part of what is commonly considered "The Grid". That means those projects involve small communities that are close to each other but are clustered 400+ miles from any larger community. Flat land so no hydro potential. Arctic so solar is a great factor in season and worthless out or season. Primary power is diesel fuel barged in to the extent storage allows and then flown in when essential. In those instances wind power is of huge benefit. In summer diesel fuel usage is reduced by about 80%. In winter by 40 to 50%. Fuel saving comes not only through fuel NOT used but through extending the usability of the stored ruel, eliminating the need for any to be flown in at immense expense.

The projects were made feasible through government participation; some in outright grants but a big part in low interest loans. Without those the capital cost would have been prohibitive for the villages or for any commercial entity.

Biggest issue over the 4 year use of the oldest projects has been maintenance. Wind machines require regular attention or they fail in dramatic ways. The amount of maintenance is small enough that it doesn't warrant the expense or training a local person or keeping one on somebody's payroll so there are periods when the diesels have to run because the wind machines are down and weather won't permit a repairperson (wow, PC, that!) to be flown in for sometimes days, occasionally for weeks.

But wind still does have a big place in the scheme of things. Just not universally.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There ARE applications where wind power is A #1.

For those who feel it's "one size fits all" then I suggest you detail your reasoning below in Eperanto - the one language that fits all!

Sure...for very small scale operations...or off grid operations....but wind has no place on a grid as evidenced by the fact that if there weren't an assload of subsidies and tax credits, no one would be trying to put wind on the grid.

Exactly right! And why Abbott is going to allow the real free market the opportunity to show how it really is without government subsidies. Going to be an interesting next couple of months... I have a feeling that the evidence will be rather stunning to see. Three wind generating companies in Australia have seen their stock prices tumble by 27% in the last few days because they are loosing them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Suppose someone came up with a way to make fusion power work, but the startup costs were larger than private industry could afford. Should the government help?

'cept this ain't nuclear fusion. It's 16th Century technology with a turbo charger tacked on. It's NOT useless. But it is being HEAVILY misused and over-hyped.. Govt should NEVER SUBSIDIZE, any product or commodity that already exists and is mature in the marketplace..

 

[flacaltenn]

There ARE applications where wind power is A #1.

For those who feel it's "one size fits all" then I suggest you detail your reasoning below in Eperanto - the one language that fits all!

Exactly -- let me jump on Henry's wagon here for a bit.. It's a NICHE power source. Ideal for reducing fuel loads in isolated places, or pumping stuff, or making OTHER fuels.

But it SUCKS as an "alternative" -- because it's not an alternative.. It's an opportunistic SUPPLEMENT..

 

[flacaltenn]

Eperanto Henry ???? Isn't that the language of that 50s silver alien that stop the world from moving? Extu Tinku or something?

 

[HenryBHough]

Eperanto Henry ???? Isn't that the language of that 50s silver alien that stop the world from moving? Extu Tinku or something?

You raise an interesting point!

Esperanto is an "invented" language dating back to the 19th century. What's puzzling is that there now are alleged to be "native speakers":

 

[flacaltenn]

So that is why all those hyper-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma are installing windmills by the thousands.

Wind power is now being installed for less than 4 cents a kw, that is unsubsidized cost, and the price is still going down. In the meantime, the price of dirty coal, is 6.6, and going up. Solar, unsubsidized, is now cheaper than dirty coal. Civilization has moved on, in spite of the cries of agony from the 'Conservatives' of this world.

Maybe it has something to do with tax credits.

The fact is that wind only produces about 30% of its nominal rating so you may say that we installed 100 gigawatts of wind power but in actuality you'll only get 30

So now adjust the price of the install to what the output actually is rather than the nominal rating on the equipment and then see what the true cost is

Overestimating Wind Power Generation From the UK to New York State - Master Resource

They are buying a lot of wind power in Oklahoma, unsubsidized, you really think the utility does not have a realistic estimate of how much power the mills will actually produce?

Yeah.. Even with the subsidies gone. The owners of these "investments" are counting on the rules that exist most places which FORCES grid operators to put them on first. Forcing inefficiencies of labor and energy at the backbone RELIABLE plants. THAT subsidy is actually more important than the production kickbacks.

THose costs of cycling and idling other fossil fuel plants are NEVER charged against wind operations. But they SHOULD be..

 

[Billy_Bob]

At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence.

There is a reason that Germany is building 20 new NG/Coal fired plants.. Its called economic survival.

 

[Old Rocks]

At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence.

There is a reason that Germany is building 20 new NG/Coal fired plants.. Its called economic survival.

Given your reputation for veracity, you better provide a link to that.

 

[Old Rocks]

So that is why all those hyper-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma are installing windmills by the thousands.

Wind power is now being installed for less than 4 cents a kw, that is unsubsidized cost, and the price is still going down. In the meantime, the price of dirty coal, is 6.6, and going up. Solar, unsubsidized, is now cheaper than dirty coal. Civilization has moved on, in spite of the cries of agony from the 'Conservatives' of this world.

Maybe it has something to do with tax credits.

The fact is that wind only produces about 30% of its nominal rating so you may say that we installed 100 gigawatts of wind power but in actuality you'll only get 30

So now adjust the price of the install to what the output actually is rather than the nominal rating on the equipment and then see what the true cost is

Overestimating Wind Power Generation From the UK to New York State - Master Resource

They are buying a lot of wind power in Oklahoma, unsubsidized, you really think the utility does not have a realistic estimate of how much power the mills will actually produce?

Yeah.. Even with the subsidies gone. The owners of these "investments" are counting on the rules that exist most places which FORCES grid operators to put them on first. Forcing inefficiencies of labor and energy at the backbone RELIABLE plants. THAT subsidy is actually more important than the production kickbacks.

THose costs of cycling and idling other fossil fuel plants are NEVER charged against wind operations. But they SHOULD be..

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

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.

"We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers." Sounds like the utility likes the wind mills.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once you've seen a weekly output chart from a wind farm -- you'll understand why quoting per hour Kw charges for it is so damn funny..

It's operation is SO intermittent that it's impossible to contract in advance for. Can't order so many MW of wind for next Thurs afternoon.. And that's what makes the grid reliable today. Contracts and scheduling.

So if you put butt-kiss out of your wind farm on Tues -- what was the Kwhr price? Well if your state is a mental asylum and builds in TOO MUCH wind -- the price per KWhr on those windless days could reach $1/KWhr.. Because you have to scramble to buy available power, at the last minute, at a market disadvantage from who ever is left producing any excess.

With wind, You have to buy capacity of far more than you NEED to get even an AVERAGE of 30% performance over a year.
So you can quote all those "installed numbers" that you like -- the reality is it's unpredictable and uncontrollable.. UNLESS you legislate that ANY wind power goes on the grid first. Before the other suppliers and investors.

Primary reason leftists love wind.. Is because they generally lack the knowledge of how any EXISTING systems actually function..

 

[WelfareQueen]

Suppose someone came up with a way to make fusion power work, but the startup costs were larger than private industry could afford. Should the government help?

No.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Who in their right mind would be against electricity from wind turbines? Or sunlight? WTF is this sucking-at-the-teet clinging that right wingers do with oil? They're like children that refuse to be weaned.