I think you're right on with the wind numbers. Subsidy forever. However, solar thermal is a different story, esp. in high-insol areas. Moving the units from Arizona to Iowa only requires increasing the (relatively cheap) reflector surfaces by 8.2 / 5.25 = an added 56%, changing the energy costs from 3.5 to 6.2 ¢/kWh by (1 + .5 x .56 = 1.28) to perhaps 4.48 to 7.94 ¢/kWh . BTW, disclaimer. I have NO financial interest in any solar project or system.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/34440.pdf Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology - Cost and Performance Forecasts - Sargent & Lundy LLC Engineering Group Chicago, Illinois

[QUOTE]For the more technically aggressive low-cost case, S&L found the National Laboratories’ “SunLab” methodology and analysis to be credible. The projections by SunLab, developed in conjunction with industry, are considered by S&L to represent a “best-case analysis” in which the technology is optimized and a high deployment rate is achieved. The two sets of estimates, by SunLab and S&L, provide a band within which the costs can be expected to fall. The figure and table below highlight these results, with initial electricity costs in the range of 10 to 12.6 ¢/kWh and eventually achieving costs in the range of 3.5 to 6.2 ¢/kWh. The specific values will depend on total capacity of various technologies deployed and the extent of R&D program success. In the technically aggressive cases for troughs / towers, the S&L analysis found that cost reductions were due to volume production (26%/28%), plant scale-up (20%/48%), and technological advance 54%/24%).[/QUOTE]

Given Sargent & Lundy Engineering's worst case scenario provides peak time solar electricity at $0.062/kwh by only building 2.8 GW and doing a few minor and definitely achievable R&D improvements, plus transmission, and a clear path is provided to offering 83% capacity factor using cheap sand and gravel tanks for thermal storage with 3x collector area and no additional central plant, which should make the installation no more expensive PER KWH if only the industry can get to 2.8 GW installed, I don;t see what we are waiting for.

It also appears to me that the more agressive forecasts of NREL / SunLab of $0.035 / kwh if we can get to 8.2 GW installed quite quickly is entirely within reach.

I think wind turbines cost nearer $.60/w than $1.60/W. I know they did in 2005. Of course commodity prices drove that a way up in mid 2008, but it's back down again now. At $.60 your worst case becomes 5.6 cents/kwh, pretty competitive. Also capacity factors in class 4 or better wind areas are mor like 33%, which gets us down below 5 cents/kwh. You may be wat too pessimistic under present economic conditions. Murray

Your combined numbers look about right. Your $/kW at the top looks like maybe it should be $/MW?

But you are right in general that wind can't shut down existing coal on an economic basis, unless you throw in a whopping carbon tax.

To be a little fair, though, that's comparing the fully loaded cost of wind with the marginal cost of coal (referring back to our discussion upthread). The installed cost of new coal might be $2800/kW, or around $.065/kWh amortized. Add the $.021 for fuel costs, and wind with a fully applied PTC can be competitive. Between wind economics and gas CC economics, a $10/ton carbon tax would keep new coal out, but leave old coal in place.