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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. (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.
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. 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 that
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.
Can someone help translate this for me? It’s what’s proposed in the Kerry Lieberman Energy Bill.
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?
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?
You know as goofy as that sounds it actually may 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.
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.
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 generator in the base and really have a cool machine
