Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

Cost of Wind Power

Started by Guest_arboramans_* , Jan 10 2012 05:47 PM

 
9 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2012 - 05:47 PM

I can't post the link to this article so you'll just have to search it. But it's a new report from a UK group called CIVITAS.

The basic summary is that wind power costs too much and doesn't save on C02 emissions.

"These costs are due to the fact that energy output from wind is unpredictable and rarely occurs in areas of most demand:

... wind-power is unreliable and requires conventional back-up generating capacity when wind speeds are, for example, very low or rapidly varying... [p. 14]



This means that wind farms need to be supported by conventional capacity including gas-fired power stations that can be switched on whenever the available wind fails to match demand for electricity.

#2 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:02 PM

The Civitas report is at http://www.civitas.o...tycosts2012.pdf

Windpower is only a part of the report.

About the report http://www.huffingto..._n_1192495.html

About the report http://www.businessg...curate-outdated

I'd say read the Civitas report yourself, but with a critical eye, keeping in mind the aims of Civitas itself.

I don't buy all that the report has to say about windpower in the UK.  Some probably is true though.

#3 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:20 PM

I think Wind Power is great for certain locations with isolated buildings or very small communities, but the baseload requirements mean it is always going to need a back up. I think we should abandon Wind for 3 reasons :
1) Birdlife protection (see Stone Eagle)
2) Baseload inefficiency
3) The sound

#4 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:39 PM

There are two options for allowing wind to be a fundamental source of electricity generation without needing a backup. The first is to use airborne power generators that can get up to 500M or more. At these altitudes and above, there is always wind so power is always available. The second ways is to provide a means of storing energy. Companies are compressing air in tanks or in bags underwater using the intermittent electricity. At the same time, numerous companies have created flywheel technologies that can store the energy as kinetic energy in a vacuum. In all these cases, the availability of energy can become more consistent while using renewables as a source.

#5 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:22 PM

View PostjasserEnv, on 11 January 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

......airborne power generators that can get up to 500M or more......

Is there one of these airborne power generators in use somewhere?
I've seen conceptual drawings, didn't know if one could be made to work reliably for a reasonable cost.

Think that flywheels have been shown to be impractical for utility scale electricity storage.  They have a place, but not for bridging across windless conditions.  Too expensive.  Compressed air energy storage?  Again, think it's been shown to be too expensive.  Excepting maybe unproven underground storage. (highly compressed gas underground...reminds one of fracking....)

#6 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:12 PM

The airborne generators have been built and are being test at this point. One example:

http://www.leonardo-...ches-test-stage

Flywheel storage does have a place and companies like beacon power are starting to put in place plants. Like all alternative energy projects, they need grants to get started, however.

http://cleantechnica...energy-storage/

As far as compressed air storage, there are a number of prototypes being actively developed. They are finding that storing the air in underwater bags is relatively efficient and not at all like fracking:

http://www.theengine...1008374.article

#7 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:02 PM

I honestly don't beleive a technology should receive any grants or subsidies of any kind. If it can't be made viable under it's own steam as it were that we shoudln't be wasting community funds on it - it's simply not fair when there are so many more pressing issues.

#8 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:51 PM

The thing is that without subsidies it is very hard for new technologies to compete with the incumbents. At the same time, those who are prospering from the existing technologies will often work to undermine the success of the newer technologies. Think "Who Killed the Electric Car?" as one of the analogies. So as a result, old, destructive technologies can stay in place far longer than they should because there are "no viable " technology alternatives in place. That said, subsidies should always have a sunset clause. Just think of the hundreds of millions in "R&D" tax credits going to the oil and gas industry.

#9 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2012 - 04:41 PM

Economics killed version 1 of the Electric Car. Versions 2 & 3 are happily rolling around the roads.

Can you point to the laws that enact the "hundreds of millions in "R&D" tax credits going to the oil and gas industry."

In Australia there's a lot of anger from people who are can't afford solar power at having to subsidize those that can via elevated feed in tariffs. It's anti Robin Hood , stealing from the poor to pay the already wealthy. It's one of the patently absurd things that happens when you go against market economics with left-idealism. Idealism cannot and can never ever beat realism.

#10 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 19 January 2012 - 07:32 AM

The commentary on "left-idealism" is conservative rhetoric which tends to dismiss facts in favor of personal belief systems. History shows that subsidies can both help and hurt. The same is true for pure market economics. However if we rely solely on pure market economics, we dismiss the fact that those with money tend to spend considerable sums of money lobbying for regulation that supports the status quo and their profits. By using subsidies, governments can provide a balance to the less productive efforts of some industries and the more beneficial behaviors of other industries.

I won't dig into the specific laws regarding subsidies but the following links indicate just how much and how important the money is that going toward subsidizing oil and gas in the US and Canada.

http://www.ogj.com/a...eps-pledge.html
http://www.window.st...ergy/subsidies/
http://www.deloitte....a42f00aRCRD.htm
http://www.somos.com...ticles/11050501
Back to Wind Power

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. AltEnergyShift
  2. → Alternative Energy Forums
  3. → Wind Power
  4. Forum Rules / Help