# Are Off-Shore Windmills An Economic Disaster? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168 "2010-05-12T14:28:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/21 "2010-05-13T21:03:56Z")
I’ve never heard that wind could be scaled up that high, and it seems highly unlikely to me. That said, I agree in principal with Chronos point that an energy solution is going to be a mix of different technologies used together. Those will include wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydro, nuclear and probably some coal and other FF based materials. They key will be getting the right mix or balance. My WAG would be that wind and solar might make up 5% each in a very optimistic world, hydro and geo-thermal will be about what they are today, and the real game changer will be nuclear, which will have the lions share in the future mix (plus, hopefully, we’ll get back some through increased efficiency in the grid at some point). But it’s going to be a combination of technologies that will be the key to reducing the CO2 output of our grid. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/22 "2010-05-13T21:43:11Z")
> [@](#): > > (plus, hopefully, we’ll get back some through increased efficiency in the grid at some point). And increased efficiency at the consumer end, too, of course. For just about everything that uses electricity in your house, there’s a way to make something with the same functionality, but more efficient. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/23 "2010-05-13T21:57:26Z")
On favorable days, Texas can generate over 20% of its electricity from wind. There’s no star-trekian magic technology involved. There are plans to add another 20,000 MW to their current 9,410 MW. A problem they face is that on good days wind produces too much electricity and the price drops to zero, without adequate transmission lines to get the power where it could do more good. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/24 "2010-05-13T22:04:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And increased efficiency at the consumer end, too, of course. For just about everything that uses electricity in your house, there’s a way to make something with the same functionality, but more efficient. I would rather the subsidy money used for windmills go into consumer rebates for geo-thermal units. Would like to see a cost analysis done on which is a more efficient use of money. I can’t see living withing 1/2 mile of a wind farm and putting them in the ocean seems that much more expensive. Woulda thought wave generators had a better chance of being developed considering their are always waves but not always wind. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/25 "2010-05-13T22:46:45Z")
I saw a program late last night on China’s’ attempt to get off coal. they intend to have 20 percent alternative energy by 2020. They are building lots of windmills. They are doing lots of solar panels . They are working hard on better car batteries and future technologies. The country that has the control of the energy of the future will be the financial powerhouse . They are doing lots of R& D. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/26 "2010-05-14T07:33:34Z")
> [@udlander](#): > > I am not Rune, but I can help answer the first part of your question… > From my latest quarterly bill (6 person household) > 1533 kWh cost 561,61 Kr > plus 30kr contract fee, plus moms (value added tax) at 25% gives 739,51kr for the electricity we used. > But - the total bill was 3067,59 kr (due to charges for: transport of electricity (443,32), public duties (?) (156,34), network contract (161,99), electricity surcharge/tax (940,83), distribution surcharge/tax (61,33), tax to encourage using less electricity (!) (98,65) and then moms again (!) giving 2328,08 in extra charges). > My conclusion, the electricity is not very expensive, but using it is. > > For comparison purposes, 100 Danish Kr is approximately 17 USD. Just looking at my bill I paid $76.89 for 578 kwh last month which is 0.133 cents per kwh. Udlander paid $521.39 (US) for 1533 kwh or 0.340 per kwh. That’s 2 1/2 times the cost. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/27 "2010-05-14T08:38:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Just looking at my bill I paid $76.89 for 578 kwh last month which is 0.133 cents per kwh. Udlander paid $521.39 (US) for 1533 kwh or 0.340 per kwh. That’s 2 1/2 times the cost. Cost of electricity from windmills are generally higher than electricity from coal power plants (although I’m not sure electricity from windmills will be higher than for CCS coal plants), but what is shown here is merely different taxation and price levels. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/28 "2010-05-14T11:34:53Z")
Thanks, clearly offshore windpower is viable in Denmark , but not (at present) in the USA-our electricity is too cheap. Personally, I think advanced nuclear plants are the way to go-but there is substantial opposition from the left wing here, so I don’t see that happenening. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/29 "2010-05-14T11:52:21Z")
Wind power is not viable in Denmark. Wind power is subsidised, but coal is cheaper. I too would prefer nuclear plants. But the same people that are opposed to it in the USA are also opposed to it in Denmark and I don’t like coal (and oil even less). For gas we would be dependent on deliveries from Russia which carries its own problems. Also Denmark is in a unique position with regard to windpower, in that we have the large hydro plants in Sweden which can quickly cut off production when the wind is blowing strongly, and thus save up for when the wind is not blowing and better utilise the wind power. You may not have that in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/30 "2010-05-14T21:10:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Just looking at my bill I paid $76.89 for 578 kwh last month which is 0.133 cents per kwh. Correction: 0.133 dollars, or 13.3 cents. 0.133 cents per kWh would be magic pony-land. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/31 "2010-05-15T00:41:55Z")
Much of the opposition to nuclear now is opposition to _subsidizing_ it, and that’s what the industry is asking for. Existing plants are cost effective but they were built with after major public investment in R&D and in helping defray the upfront costs. The industry has been asking for [over $50 billion](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/25/nuclear_subsidies_put_taxpayers_at_risk/) in loan guarantees. This is after its historic R&D subsidization that got them to this point. The opposition to that comes less from the left than from fiscal conservatives. The interested can find a good look at different subsidies for different sources over time [here.](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html) (Source: World Nuclear Organization) One bit of some note: > [@](#): > > The USA is the only country which has offered any subsidy to nuclear power: a production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh from the first 6000 MWe of new-generation nuclear plants in their first 8 years of operation (same as for wind power on unlimited basis). (In 2007 the USA subsidised renewables by $724 million and recorded $199 billion subsidy for nuclear power…) Nuclear is no panacea and neither are wind turbines, off-shore or otherwise. Both have been and will continue to be subsidized. The alternative, to fairly price the life-cycle carbon instead and thereby to capture the externalized costs, is unlikely to occur in any near term. Compared to the historic subsidization that nuclear has previously received, wind is not getting much, really. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/32 "2010-05-15T02:02:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Correction: 0.133 dollars, or 13.3 cents. 0.133 cents per kWh would be magic pony-land. Yes. I displayed dollars and called it cents. Bad habit. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/33 "2010-05-15T03:02:11Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Much of the opposition to nuclear now is opposition to _subsidizing_ it, and that’s what the industry is asking for. Existing plants are cost effective but they were built with after major public investment in R&D and in helping defray the upfront costs. The industry has been asking for [over $50 billion](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/25/nuclear_subsidies_put_taxpayers_at_risk/) in loan guarantees. This is after its historic R&D subsidization that got them to this point. The opposition to that comes less from the left than from fiscal conservatives. > > The interested can find a good look at different subsidies for different sources over time [here.](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html) (Source: World Nuclear Organization) One bit of some note: > > Nuclear is no panacea and neither are wind turbines, off-shore or otherwise. Both have been and will continue to be subsidized. The alternative, to fairly price the life-cycle carbon instead and thereby to capture the externalized costs, is unlikely to occur in any near term. Compared to the historic subsidization that nuclear has previously received, wind is not getting much, really. A loan guarantee isn’t a subsidy unless the project fails. My state is well aware of the financial risk of building a nuclear power plant. We are the proud users of the first nuclear to coal plant in the world (due to cost overruns). Given the technological requirements of such a plant it is important that an established design is used and it’s built by someone with a track record. On a side note, I don’t see how a nuclear power plant can be lumped in with either wind or solar. One is a continuous use facility and the other is dependent on weather conditions and cannot be relied upon as primary sources of energy. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/34 "2010-05-15T04:22:21Z")
Yes and no. A loan is a risk of an explicit subsidy and it is subsidizing by providing a load on terms that the industry could not otherwise match (if any lender was willing to take that kind of a chance at any cost). It is a subsidy to at least the same degree that TARP funds dispersed were subsidies, and generally that is the word used to describe them as well. As to your side note. If wind or solar became a primary energy source in an area without address the question of intermittency then that objection is pertinent. While we are talking about wind and/or solar providing minority shares of the energy demand for any particular market then not so much so. By the way, the op was very specific in the example of the Massachusetts project, which is called Cape Wind, and which recently became [the nation’s first approved off shore wind farm](http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/04/cape_wind_annou.html). Massachusetts however is not debating spending $2 billion. It is a _private sector_ project that may cost more than that and which will receive Federal subsidies and tax credits, which some claim will be as high as $1.3 billion (although I’ve also more often read much smaller numbers claimed, less than one third or even one fourth that high). The location is considered ideal because of its relatively consistent strong winds, the depth of the water, and its proximity to extant transmission infrastructures. An article in the New York Times quoted a report (albeit one commissioned by backers of the project) that [claims](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/report-says-cape-wind-would-save-billions/) that > [@](#): > > An offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound could save the New England region billions of dollars over 25 years … The turbines would supply about 10 percent of the 2013 power demand in Southeastern Massachusetts and about 1 percent of the total 2013 New England demand. > > The project would save the New England region about $185 million a year, according to the report, which was prepared this month by Charles River Associates and commissioned by backers of the project. Over 25 years, this would amount to $4.6 billion… Is the subsidy a smart investment in the future or is it “a bad investment..especially compared with a modern coal-fired plant (or even nuclear)”? I’m leaning to thinking the former rather than the latter myself. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/35 "2010-05-15T04:41:11Z")
Can someone help translate [this](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/kerr.html#more) for me? It’s what’s proposed in the Kerry Lieberman Energy Bill. > [@](#): > > Increasing Nuclear Power Generation. The bill includes a broad package of financial incentives to increase nuclear power generation including regulatory risk insurance for 12 projects, accelerated depreciation for nuclear plants, a new investment tax credit to promote the construction of new generating facilities, $54 billion in loan guarantees and a manufacturing tax credit to spur the domestic production of nuclear parts. > > It also improve the efficiency of the licensing process; invests in the research and development of small, modular reactors (SMR) and enhanced proliferation controls; and designates an existing national laboratory as a nuclear waste reprocessing Center of Excellence. The $54 billion loan guarantee is easy enough, but how much do those regulatory insurance, accelerated depreciation, construction tax credits, and manufacturing tax credits add up to? How do you figure it out? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/36 "2010-05-15T05:11:02Z")
The mostest quoteses I can get from the public 5-17 New Yorker: > [@](#): > > The most potentially significant Squid Labs project is a wind-energy company called Makani Power. “We mount the turbines on a rigid wing and fly the wing around in circles, and transmit the electricity back to the ground through the tether that connects the wing to the ground,” said Corwin Hardham, who directs Makani’s research > > Read more: [The Inventor’s Dilemma | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/17/100517fa_fact_owen#ixzz0nyJawjJO) ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/37 "2010-05-15T07:12:07Z")
That is the whole point: we can have “green” power, if we are prepared to pay 2-3x the price (that we pay for carbon-emitting power). At some point the question has to be asked-is it worth it? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/38 "2010-05-15T12:27:12Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The mostest quoteses I can get from the public 5-17 New Yorker: You know as goofy as that sounds it actually [may](http://www.windenergyplanning.com/new-wind-energy-kites/) be viable, in certain locations anyway. They are talking about using high tech robotic kites being kept aloft by high intensity high altitude winds and transmitting that consistent high energy back down. Yes, lots of problems to work out and may never happen, or may never be cost-effective, but not as 100% stupid as it sounds at first blush out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/39 "2010-05-15T17:05:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You know as goofy as that sounds it actually [may](http://www.windenergyplanning.com/new-wind-energy-kites/) be viable, in certain locations anyway. They are talking about using high tech robotic kites being kept aloft by high intensity high altitude winds and transmitting that consistent high energy back down. Yes, lots of problems to work out and may never happen, or may never be cost-effective, but not as 100% stupid as it sounds at first blush out of context. Yah. Here’s a quote from your cite: > [@](#): > > In this TED presentation, Makani Power’s Saul Griffith says that commercial wind turbines are restricted from utilising the full potential of wind energy because the towers cannot be constructed higher than circa 100 metres high. He says a kite system is much better because it can capture increased wind energy at higher altitudes. There really are some concrete advantages. For one thing you needn’t bother building an enormous tower- all you really need is the leading edge of the blade to fly around. And as they mentioned, the winds are much more powerful at, say, 2000 feet, so you get more bang for the buck. I can see it working well in places like: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Alberta, just off the top of my head. Hey I know! Offshore! ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168/40 "2010-05-15T17:13:21Z")
Depending on how the things are launched and how they behave, they might be set up fairly close together. Assuming they have a lot of loft and don’t trace too big a circle. If they have a huge amount of loft, you could install a [piezoelectric](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity) generator in the base and really have a cool machine 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-off-shore-windmills-an-economic-disaster/539168.md?page=3)