 | DrumBeat: January 31, 2009 | The Oil Drum | Possible US Oil Refinery Strike; Continuing British Refinery Strike |  |
| Energy Controversies Lecture Series, University of Aberdeen | The Oil Drum: Europe | The energy efficiency of energy procurement systems | |
79 comments on Wind power set to decline under Obama?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
79 comments on Wind power set to decline under Obama?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Such a calculation is incomplete. It assumes infrastructure at no cost.
For ex. the north stream gas pipeline roughly estimated cost is Euro 5 bn.
Of course this is to be paid by EU taxpayers.
All cost comparisons published by utilities is always exclusive infrastructure cost.
Not so with wind power. That is the reason
why power companies claim wind energy is expensive. Yes it is but not for the tax payer.
If electrical energy generated by nuclear fission had not been so heavily subsidized
in EU it were, by simple arithmetic, not competitive.
Given that the largest part of the cost of natural gas is infrastructure, it certainly IS included in the price of gas. Nordstream will not be paid by taxpayers, it will be paid by Gazprom (and, in practice, deducted directly from the payments for bas by Ruhrgas & al) via an agreed tariff per volume transports and/or a capacity charge.
I don't know why we are having this argument: I certianly agree that wind is cheaper than gas for power generation, without subsidies, but that does not mean that the calculations should be done wrong, and the fact remains that a MW of gas-fired power plant (which does not include the cost of gas, and thus does not include the cost of the gas infrastructure) is cheaper to build than a MW of wind - it will simply be a lot more expensive to use.
No argument. I just want to put the actual variables and constants in place.
The EU is supposed to subsidize north stream with Euro 5 bn in addition to investment by Gazprom and E.On.
German chancellor has just today called EU to support this subsidy ( I hope it will be rejected)
If you were to built a shopping mall you have to provide infrastructure including
new roads parking lots etc.
Of course this cost is part of building cost not of operating cost. The cost of maintenance is operating cost.
The same applies for a gas fired power plant.
Don't get me wrong I do not argue against gas fired in fact modern facilities have an overall efficiency of 60% but I argue against the propaganda and lobby work of
the all too mighty power companies.
For ex. Gazprom is about to built a 400 MW gas fired power plant somewhere in east germany. That means, the utilities
make still upside profit with already extremely expensive Gazprom gas - more than 2 times the price of Henry hub spot.
The utilities use the pretext of extremely expensive renewables to ever increase energy prices.