<Thursday open threadThe Oil DrumMissing Barrels>

61 comments on Wind farms in danger

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 24, 2006 - 10:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good, but this will affect the economics of wind farms which is already not too good. In Germany for example they are subsidizing wind power with about 10 eurocents/kwth (payed by consumers). Here the federal subsidy is 1.6 c/kwth. The plans to remove subsidies are still just plans and probably will stay this way.

I'm not sure if people are aware of the price they will have to pay, especially if wind starts growing beyond 10-15%. As I discussed here the costs would be mind-boggling.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on February 24, 2006 - 11:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why are you worried about STORING power?  

As electricity moves to more of a real-time market pricing, the government woven glove over the invisible hand of the market will take care of the NEED for storage.

People can run their delayable loads when power is cheaper, things like charging the electric car, washer, dryer, et la.

If the shipping by electric rail infrastructure is constructed properly (along with tax law changes to make JIT shipping not advantatagous tax wise) when there is excess electrical power, the freight trains move.

The present POV WRT electrical power - flip a switch and its there, will just have to change.   Variable pricing based on resource aviablity will force the change is all.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 24, 2006 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Wind varies in an order of minutes. What you suggest would require that the price of your power changes every 5 minutes and all you do the whole day is watch the weather forecast and rush to switch your AC on and off.

Can you imagine the losses that a loss of power would cause for a aluminium factory for example? Sorry, but this is a total nonsense.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on February 24, 2006 - 6:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You don't switch your A/C on and off, it monitors the markets and does it for you.  You don't have any disruption of climate control because it's storing cooling as ice when power is cheap.

Besides, the variations in wind power go down the bigger the area covered by the wind farm is.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 24, 2006 - 1:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, don't you think consumers should be paying 12¢/kWh rather than 1.6.  Seems to me that expensive power is better than no power at all.  

If USA can finance new technologies, develop and build 2,593 F-35 fighter jets, they can afford a few new wind turbines.  All depends on which one they want the most sky power consumers or sky power producers.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15152&rsbci=11173&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Wonder how long that fill up is going to last.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 24, 2006 - 1:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Link didn't fit in the box.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=
15152&rsbci=11173&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Generaly on February 24, 2006 - 5:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It isn't easy to figure out how much it will cost to generate electricity - the following is one example of an attempt to compare electrical and NG space heating.  And the conclusion is: frustration...  The biggest problem is the prediction of the various fuel prices and volatilities.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/features/beamon1.pdf

My reading has convinced me that wind power isn't as "relatively" expensive as the conventional wisdom would have it.  For one thing, once it is built, the "fuel" is almost "free" and therefore, with very low price volatility (risk).  And, if you believe in peak oil, then high fuel prices and volatility will be (are?) the norm.  (How about 30-year fuel contracts?  Under huge price increases, most of the suppliers will simply go bankrupt, and the power company will then have to pay market rates.)  Capital and maintenance costs are high for wind, but no other generation method is exactly free.  The following link gives another comparison:

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/71/v/3/sp/

I think that one of the reasons that the USA has been on a wind power building binge is the subsidy, but I also think that the power companies have discovered a type of a gold mine in wind, and they are taking advantage of it.  Maybe the wind power companies are pleading poor economics partly because they are attempting to milk us for more dollars.  Heck, the oil industry does this all the time, and they get billions and massive tax breaks every year!  Maybe the wind power industry is just drinking at the same trough.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 24, 2006 - 5:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What really amazes me about wind power support is the perception that many people have that it will wean us off the power of huge corporations. I wonder on what base? Anybody here know how to install and maintain a 5 MW wind turbine?

It will be clearly the opposite IMO, and with the implied necessity of subsidies you will have to add a heightened tax burden as a nice little extra.

Regarding the cost - above 10-15% wind penetration we will have to find a way to store that wind energy and start building expensive storages in a geometric progression. Nobody included these costs in this article and noone included the costs of maintaining a fossil powered backup capacity even with penetration well below 10%. But of course who cares, what is important is to show the public that we do something to reduce fossil fuels usage. Blah.

Let us not fool ourselves, wind is not THE answer. It could be one of the answers but relying on it to replace all nuclear, gas and coal is simply not serious. I'd also say irresponsible, IMO.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on February 24, 2006 - 7:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Let us not fool ourselves, wind is not THE answer.
Very true, but it appears to be the only one which is zero-emission, has few political and almost no technical hitches, is cheaper than gas-fired TODAY and can be ordered and delivered in a couple of years.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on February 24, 2006 - 9:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, I think the rational thing is to look at the energy mix a power company (or region) has, and how to manage both cost and risk.  Recently California (heavily fueld by natural gas) took a cost hit.  Perhaps some more wind would have balanced the portfolio, as it were.

According to my Southern California Edison stub, I got 3% of my 2004 power from wind (1% solar, 1% small hydro, 2% biomass, 9% large hydro, 11% geothermal, 18% coal, 22% nuke, 33% natural gas).

(In terms of weaning us off corporations ... the "off grid" stuff does continue to evolve with some technology overlap.)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 25, 2006 - 2:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I agree it would be wise to replace especially the natural gas production with wind. Just like oil, NG has no future as a fuel for electricity, and wasting 60% of it (probably 70% with transmission and conversion losses) is an absolute shame.

15% wind and 19% gas would look much better IMO. The obsolate NG power plants could be left as a backup for wind. All you will need is some NG storage facilities. Hope your grid is not too decentralized.

(the "off grid" stuff is doomed. we are all in the Matrix and nobody is researching red pills)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.