wind power is better than the regular energy sources. You have to take into account that in order to reduce the impact of wind turbines on wildlife, a consultation with the wildlife experts is a must. You, I and most of the people on this board know, that's not the case when it comes to money. Most of the time companies looking for easy money are also behind the installation if wind power, not green minds.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
14
What is holding wind power back?
Started by Alli, Oct 28 2011 04:56 AM
95 replies to this topic
#83
Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:25 PM
As soon as battery technology (or some other energy storage option) becomes economical enough to use residentially, we will have a turbine and go off grid. We get enough wind, even in town, to generate power with some of the new turbines on the market, but just need the energy storage to make it worth while.
#85
Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:42 AM
I think one of the biggest issues with green technology in general is cost. If people have to pay more for it, they will choose not to use it. A lot of people think in terms of self-interest, and what will be best for them. Sometimes, this is necessary, with the way our economy is now. As a point of interest, and something exciting, Australia seems to have figured it out. In Australia, wind power is now cheaper than the cost of electricity supplied from the coal plant. This is definitely a step in the right direction! Hopefully more and more places will follow suit, and cost will no longer be an issue.
here's the article if you're interested: http://www.gizmag.co...ustralia/26193/
here's the article if you're interested: http://www.gizmag.co...ustralia/26193/
#87
Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:07 AM
I did some more research becuase I was curious to see how close we were getting to being "Australia". While coal and natural gas are still the cheapest forms of energy, we are getting closer. Surprisingly enough, coal is not the cheapest form of energy. Hydro comes in first at only $.03 per kWh. This was surprising, as usually coal is thought of as the cheapest form of energy. However, hydroelectricity is harder to use and a much more inconvenient form of energy. Coal and nuclear energy came in tied at second at $.04 per kWh. Then, the one we've all been waiting for, wind power follows at $.08 per kWh. Wind is cheaper than natural gas at $.10 per kWh. While not yet the cheapest form of energy, wind energy has surpassed one form of nonrenewable energy, only to gain on coal as coal prices increase and technology of windpower increases.
source: Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar by Jason Morgan
source: Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar by Jason Morgan
#88
Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:16 AM
Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar by Jason Morgan "Nuclear Fissionary",
. . . that I found has slightly different values,
. . . but what I find really interesting is,
. . . Solar: No estimate found
. . . Nuclear: $0.019
. . . Coal: $0.027
. . . Natural Gas: $0.081
. . . Wind:$0.030
. . . Hydroelectric: $0.009
Especially as Solar is the only energy source,
. . . that the average person has a chance,
. . . to personally afford to own.
Source: comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar
. . . that I found has slightly different values,
. . . but what I find really interesting is,
. . . Solar: No estimate found
. . . Nuclear: $0.019
. . . Coal: $0.027
. . . Natural Gas: $0.081
. . . Wind:$0.030
. . . Hydroelectric: $0.009
Especially as Solar is the only energy source,
. . . that the average person has a chance,
. . . to personally afford to own.
Source: comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar
Attached Files
-
Solar.jpeg 5.56K
3 downloads
#89
Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:25 AM
yep, I read the same article, I just used the table he presented. It is a very interesting point that he could not find a solar estimate, although it is clear that even when only considering its construction costs, it is the most expensive. I guess the question then would be if the energy produced would save enough compared to coal or other types of energy to pay for the construction cost.
#90
Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:19 AM
kels, on 06 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:
yep, I read the same article, I just used the table he presented. It is a very interesting point that he could not find a solar estimate, although it is clear that even when only considering its construction costs, it is the most expensive. I guess the question then would be if the energy produced would save enough compared to coal or other types of energy to pay for the construction cost.
You might be surprised that a top of the line Honda gas Generator VS Solar Generator costs, are almost the same,
. . . Yet a gas generator is not made to run 24/7/365 and a solar generator with batteries can.
#91
Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:07 PM
eds, on 06 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar by Jason Morgan "Nuclear Fissionary",
. . . that I found has slightly different values,
. . . but what I find really interesting is,
. . . Solar: No estimate found. . .
. . . that I found has slightly different values,
. . . but what I find really interesting is,
. . . Solar: No estimate found. . .
For the "no estimate" bit, consider both when the piece was written and the source. 2010 and "Nuclear Fissionary"
Looks to me like the main thrust of the Nuclear Fissionary article was to promote the idea that nuclear electricity would be a suitable replacement for coal electricity, for newly constructed powerplants anyway. I thought the argument was pretty good.
Things have changed since 2010 though. The Fukushima experience has made nuclear electricity a much harder sell. The price of natural gas has fallen enough in the US make new coal plants a hard sell. Solar costs have dropped a lot.
The US EIA comes out with a new estimate of electricity levelized costs (of utiliy scale setups) every year. http://www.eia.gov/f..._generation.cfm
(@kels, I don't understand your statement "However, hydroelectricity is harder to use and a much more inconvenient form of energy."
In the US, the suitable sites for dams for large hydroelectric are either already used up or are protected. Basically can't be expanded in the US. I guess your statement would apply to run-of-river hydro though.) .
#92
Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:17 AM
punjabi, on 04 April 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:
Here very good news - Italy state now own much wind farm, take from Mafia!
I cut/paste (yes good guess by you)
Italian police say they have confiscated mafia assets $1.7 billion - the biggest seizure of its kind in history.
The multi billion-dollar haul included the seizure of 43 wind and solar energy companies, 98 properties and 66 bank accounts belonging to Vito Nicastri, a businessman described by authorities as a frontman for the Sicilian Mafia.
Nicastri, 57, was once dubbed 'Lord of the Wind' for his holdings in wind farms which prosecutors say were funded by extortion, drug sales and other illicit activities.
Three years ago, investigators found the mafia was engaged in a massive eco-scam, claiming generous grants for investment in wind-power and environmentally- friendly businesses.
"This is a sector in which money can easily be laundered," Arturo de Felice, head of Italy's anti-mafia agency, told local media.
"Operating in a grey area helped him build up his business over the years."
The anti-mafia agency in a statement said it was the biggest seizure of mafia-linked assets.
The assets had been frozen in 2010 and Nicastri is on probation under orders not to leave his home town of Alcamo in western Sicily during the investigation.
Nicastri had "numerous and high-level contacts with mafia figures", the anti-mafia agency said, adding that this had been confirmed by messages found during the arrest of two local mafia bosses.
The businessman was also linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, a fugitive who is considered the godfather of the Sicilian mafia, the statement said.
The seizure "impacts in a significant way on the economic power of Matteo Messina Denaro, who is considered the lord of that land," it said.
Mr De Felice said the seizure "will definitely make life more difficult" for Messina Denaro.
He said revenue from the companies and properties seized would now be going to the state
I cut/paste (yes good guess by you)
Italian police say they have confiscated mafia assets $1.7 billion - the biggest seizure of its kind in history.
The multi billion-dollar haul included the seizure of 43 wind and solar energy companies, 98 properties and 66 bank accounts belonging to Vito Nicastri, a businessman described by authorities as a frontman for the Sicilian Mafia.
Nicastri, 57, was once dubbed 'Lord of the Wind' for his holdings in wind farms which prosecutors say were funded by extortion, drug sales and other illicit activities.
Three years ago, investigators found the mafia was engaged in a massive eco-scam, claiming generous grants for investment in wind-power and environmentally- friendly businesses.
"This is a sector in which money can easily be laundered," Arturo de Felice, head of Italy's anti-mafia agency, told local media.
"Operating in a grey area helped him build up his business over the years."
The anti-mafia agency in a statement said it was the biggest seizure of mafia-linked assets.
The assets had been frozen in 2010 and Nicastri is on probation under orders not to leave his home town of Alcamo in western Sicily during the investigation.
Nicastri had "numerous and high-level contacts with mafia figures", the anti-mafia agency said, adding that this had been confirmed by messages found during the arrest of two local mafia bosses.
The businessman was also linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, a fugitive who is considered the godfather of the Sicilian mafia, the statement said.
The seizure "impacts in a significant way on the economic power of Matteo Messina Denaro, who is considered the lord of that land," it said.
Mr De Felice said the seizure "will definitely make life more difficult" for Messina Denaro.
He said revenue from the companies and properties seized would now be going to the state
Source for that text?
#94
Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:46 AM
Ok now I want to get back on subject. The only thing holding wind back is governmental inaction and mixed messages. Last year wind instillation lead not only the United States but world. The problem was that with Congress taking so long to finally renew the Production Tax Credit much of the industry work like crazy to finish out projects, with little plan for future projects, because honestly know one knew what the financial situations would be.
Now today the wind industry has a small reprieve for 2013 and 2014 with a push toward offshore wind, in Europe and Asia, offshore wind is a mature technology providing hundreds of Megwatts of clean affordable energy with less impact on birds and bats and standing up to the worst pstorms the North Atlantic can throw at it. Now is the time for people to tell their local, state, and federal officials they want more clean wind energy offshore. The technology is sound, the potential is much greater for energy production and unlike coal, oil or natural gas, has no effect on the nvironment or water our most threatened natural resourse.
In most of the world including the Middle East, nothing is holding wind back, here in the United States its held back by political gridlock and inaction.
Finally to those who question the Production Taxpayer Credit here is the answer Wind provides energy for 25 to 30 years receiving a tax credit for 3 years. Unlike fossil fuel which get billions to fund things like dirty tar sands, push forward climate change and decimate our water resources. Fossil fuels take their profits to fund Congress with millions to get back billions in our taxes, so stop questioning why wind gets a break or for that matter any renewable energy like solar and question why fossil fuels get billions and still charge record prices to consumers.
Now today the wind industry has a small reprieve for 2013 and 2014 with a push toward offshore wind, in Europe and Asia, offshore wind is a mature technology providing hundreds of Megwatts of clean affordable energy with less impact on birds and bats and standing up to the worst pstorms the North Atlantic can throw at it. Now is the time for people to tell their local, state, and federal officials they want more clean wind energy offshore. The technology is sound, the potential is much greater for energy production and unlike coal, oil or natural gas, has no effect on the nvironment or water our most threatened natural resourse.
In most of the world including the Middle East, nothing is holding wind back, here in the United States its held back by political gridlock and inaction.
Finally to those who question the Production Taxpayer Credit here is the answer Wind provides energy for 25 to 30 years receiving a tax credit for 3 years. Unlike fossil fuel which get billions to fund things like dirty tar sands, push forward climate change and decimate our water resources. Fossil fuels take their profits to fund Congress with millions to get back billions in our taxes, so stop questioning why wind gets a break or for that matter any renewable energy like solar and question why fossil fuels get billions and still charge record prices to consumers.
#95
Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:28 AM
E3 wise, on 06 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:
In most of the world including the Middle East, nothing is holding wind back, here in the United States its held back by political gridlock and inaction.
Finally to those who question the Production Taxpayer Credit here is the answer Wind provides energy for 25 to 30 years receiving a tax credit for 3 years. Unlike fossil fuel which get billions to fund things like dirty tar sands, push forward climate change and decimate our water resources. Fossil fuels take their profits to fund Congress with millions to get back billions in our taxes, so stop questioning why wind gets a break or for that matter any renewable energy like solar and question why fossil fuels get billions and still charge record prices to consumers.
Finally to those who question the Production Taxpayer Credit here is the answer Wind provides energy for 25 to 30 years receiving a tax credit for 3 years. Unlike fossil fuel which get billions to fund things like dirty tar sands, push forward climate change and decimate our water resources. Fossil fuels take their profits to fund Congress with millions to get back billions in our taxes, so stop questioning why wind gets a break or for that matter any renewable energy like solar and question why fossil fuels get billions and still charge record prices to consumers.
Thank you E3. These are points that need to be driven home repeatedly in every opinion section of every newspaper in the country.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users