Jerry has been trying to convince me over here that the new sources of electricity are still way too expensive. So I read some of his links and also found these interesting current sources.
IRENA RenewablePowerGenerationCosts in 2017
FORBES Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper
This is an interesting piece explaining the big changes that have occurred in wind.
IRENA RenewablePowerGenerationCosts in 2017
FORBES Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper
What I think I know based on this study is that the alternative energy sources were initially expensive and unreliable... Since I am an engineer this makes perfect sense to me, I mean usually when developing new technologies and equipment:
- there is a steep learning curve (ie very high new content)
- the more complex, the more challenging (ie work in rain, sun, snow, hail, etc for decades)
- it takes multiple generations to debug concepts, designs, etc
- given the long life of this equipment, those generations are measured in decades
- costs at low volume are HIGH, so volume matters
"Noble's company, Wintec Energy, eventually replaced its 212 original turbines with 35 larger machines. Those were later replaced with five even larger machines. Today, the five turbines generate six times as much energy as the original 212, Noble said.
"It's just the difference between a Model T Ford and a Porsche," he said."
30 comments:
Excuse me while I chuckle. The "renewable power association" says their vested interest is the best one? Puh-leeze. As for the EIA, notice they state clearly it is the operating cost (with fuel free) that they are tracking. What about the huge CAPITAL costs of mining, building, moving, erecting, maintaining, new power lines, and, most importantly, the fossil fuel plants needed to back up that unreliable power?
The simple way of judging the cost of power generation is what happens to your electric bill as more "renewables" come online. They seem to be going up, therefore...
It seems to me that electricity cost varies more based on location and state population than on generation method.
More EIA Info
And more info
Here is an excellent piece
I'll have to read more of his work
I have to quibble on at least one major point in all this reading: "wind and sun will always be free." Yes, but tapping into that can be darn expensive. Why don't we use the stored sunshine in coal and gas? The tools are already there.
His articles about Georgetown fail to mention (cannot find the source) which says that the natural gas boom has made the Georgetown (TX) fixed-price, long-term contract for "100% renewables" an untenable mistake.
They are fine for small places, especially when electricity is fungible, but SOMEBODY has to pay those capital costs. And imagining our whole grid could be 100% or even 80% renewables is folly. You simply will never get around the 35% "availability factor" for wind.
That is why we have natural gas back up.
No need for that big, messy, slow, labor intensive, coal. :-)
And why I think coal gasification may be the century-old technology that makes more sense. Especially the in-situ kind. You still need a pipeline, but that's easier than long-distance cabling to widely-scattered windmills.
And natural gas backup is better, but it's still a fossil fuel, and still puts out both CO2 and H2O. If you want to use natural gas because it's cheaper, you're smart. If you want to use it because it produces less CO2, you're doing the right thing for the wrong reason. And if you're just doing it so you can appear to meet the whirly-gig mandates, you're stupid.
Maybe someday coal gasification will become useable Maybe...
And more information
Your citations are for mine-and-gasify systems. Look into in-situ. Numerous advantages. Not sure why it has not been commercialized.
And of course there is also CDCL technology. If we would quit building windmills, maybe we could invest more in commercializing these truly breakthrough technologies that are cheaper, more reliable and, quite by accident, produce less CO2.
Per your own rationale... If they were better and cheaper someone would be using them...
It looks like we are stuck with wind turbines, natural gas, hydro, solar, etc.
You don't think that the same huge amount of money spent "improving" these whirligigs would make some of these other processes commercially successful? Government mandates and subsidizes windmills, so guess what we get? Not the best solution, certainly. Gov't should not be picking winners and losers. The odds are against it.
Please note per my sources that fossil fuels get a TON of subsidies and research credits.
My guess is that when one has a turd (ie lump of coal)... No amount of polishing will turn it into a precious gem stone.
But I hope they develop more methods.
You are assuming there is something wrong with using coal, our most plentiful fuel resource (other than uranium). The impurities are a problem, but we mostly have that licked thanks partly to my old college roommate. That it generates CO2 is NOT a problem. And if coal gasification or combined cycle or some of these other efficiency improvements (save money) then it's even better.
The GOP platform says we want an "all of the above energy strategy" where government does not pick winners and losers. I'll point out that, even if some tax breaks (not subsidies) go to coal companies, the playing field is not level as it should be. You cannot tell me that Obama's "war on coal" was an even-handed approach to energy production.
The other approaches are out there, some receiving very modest government research money, but we're hell-bent on building bird-shredders. Imagine if all of that was spent on some or all of these alternative research projects? Could we just pause a few years until something better comes along?
No...
Why not? You've admitted to uncertainty. What if we build all these windmills and then something much cheaper and more reliable comes along and makes them obsolete?
One does not make plans based on a dream...
We know:
- there is potentially a moose in the fog
- humans are continuing to accelerate (ie more humans more power usage)
- that acceleration can be reduced somewhat by taking immediate action
- immediate action with what is available is the only logical step
Besides I think it going to hard to beat the combination of the big modern wind turbines and natural gas back up.
I mean the wind turbines are kind of like hydro electric if their reliability is improving. They just sit there and spin once they are set up.
Remember those Palm Springs early adopters who paved the way for us.
"Noble's company, Wintec Energy, eventually replaced its 212 original turbines with 35 larger machines. Those were later replaced with five even larger machines. Today, the five turbines generate six times as much energy as the original 212, Noble said.
"It's just the difference between a Model T Ford and a Porsche," he said."
Not many birds dying now... :-)
"hard to beat"? What is it we are trying to accomplish? You will never beat the 35% availability factor for wind. Not possible. Which means you can put in as many as you want but will still burn natural gas (or coal) 100% of the time, and replace the windmill three times before replacing the natgas plant once. It's capital intensive and, other than raising the cost of electricity thereby, accomplishes nothing.
As for your analogy, it's just plain false. The IPCC, EPA, simple math, and the actual data all agree there is no moose. Only in the computerized climate models is there "fog" and when the data do not match the models, we should NOT change the data, which is what the alarmists are doing. We're being driven by superstition and hype. "Immediate action" is the most illogical thing we could do in the face of what we know. It's only required because the alarmists /say/, based only on their fevered dreams, that the world will end if we don't. "One does not make plans based on a dream."
100% - 35% = 65%
You are welcome to your opinion.
What you miss is that these power plants, even natgas, take time to heat up. As a result, most of the backup power continues to run and burn fuel even when the wind blows. Windmills are not efficient and reliable, and their principal benefit-- reducing CO2-- does not need doing at all. What a humongous waste of resources.
Source?
Here is mine
And another
Why again would they be running this or burning fuel when they did not need the power?
Because the minute the wind stops blowing, they must restart the plant, which means heating the boilers to produce steam. Somewhere between 2-3 hours, apparently. startup time
Fast Start Natural Gas Plants
Understanding how gas works
sigh nothing is more expensive than doing something that does not need doing at all.
sigh It is a good thing younger people prefer to take better care of what God gave us. :-)
“nothing is more expensive than doing something that does not need doing at all.”
Well said. See also: Wall
Moose
Now that is kind of funny
Apparently "need is in the eye of the beholder".
Cost of the Wall-- about $5 billion. ANNUAL cost of illegal immigrants $54 Billion.
Annual cost of renewables (wind and solar) $20 billion. Benefit .0003 degrees per year less warming.
OK, maybe windmills DO need doing. At least it keeps The Myth alive.
I think you are forgetting the benefit of much fewer of these chemicals being released into our air and water. (ie arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chlorine, formaldehyde, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium)
Wind flowing past blades is pretty darn clean.
Post a Comment