I don’t know. I doubt there is a fixed shelf price on these things. And they are usually sold as a turn-key installation with x number of years of service. The price per produced unit is still higher than coal, but supposedly the cost of these new models (when they are put into production), brings the offshore windmills down to the same level as onshore windmills. One of the limiting factors of windmills is the lack of available space, since few people wants them in the landscape around where they live. If you can build them offshore at this lower price, then a lot more should be able to be put up.
Power consumption in the US was 1x10^20 joules in 2007
http://www.eia.doe.gov/analysis/
Sourced from “Annuall Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Cases”
1yr = 365 days = 8,760 hours = 525,600 min = 31,536,000 sec
1x10^20joules/31 ,536,000sec =3.17x10^12 watts
3.17x10^12 watts/7x10^6 = 453,000
We will need 450 thousand of those churning at full tilt to cover our power needs 5 years ago.
Can you at least see why some of us think claims of this sort of energy are outlandish? I don’t even think 10% of that is reasonable. If you do, please show me the numbers. Show me what the manufacturing costs are. Show me the material requirements and maintenance schedules for similar operations.
The same could be said for almost any single kind of source. But the future energy needs shouldn’t be covered by one single method. We need to bring in a whole array of different methods. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc. All of them need to be brought into play if we want to reduce coal and co2. But I don’t see any particular reason why the USA should not be able to cover at least 10-20% by wind-power. Other, poorer and/or more densely populated nations, have already done so, and with older generation windmill technology. And, according to Wikipedia, you already cover 3% of your needs by windmills – with older technology. 40,000MW US windmill power today is not outlandish. That’s very real.
Wind and solar and insulation, oh my!
40,000MW windmill power may be reasonable, but if you look at the numbers we need 3 million MW. You want 10%, then you’ll need 300,000MW.
I don’t get where your 3% number is coming from. Wikipedia gets me this reference: http://www.wwindea.org/home/index2.php?option=com_jce&task=popup&img=images/stories/top10mid2010s.jpg&title=&w=800&h=628
From there we are at 36,300 MW which is 1%. And that’s nameplate capacity. I have no idea how that relates to actual power production.
I can easily remember not that long ago when the ptb (and the idiots that believed them) swore there was no way to build a modern car that could get 40 mpg, or if they did it would be too expensive.
If just the light trucks got double the mileage they do now, in the US, which of course is possible, the US would need no imported oil. None.
Certainly if the herd was serious about changing power generation, and power use, solutions abound.
Is it a technological problem? Not at all.
Just like it wasn’t a technological problem a decade ago to build a car that gets 40 miles on an electric charge, and 40 mpg after that.
Since they were making cars in the 70’s that got into the mid 30 mpg range I’d like a cite on this meme.
I’d like a cite for that one too because they’ve been putting 4 cylinders in light trucks for years. I don’t see how a 22/27 Ranger is going to cure oil imports if it goes to 44/54.
It’s a technological problem when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. That means real power plants have to run in parallel to supply power.
Magiver: And don’t forget all the “carbon footprints,” not to mention other pollution, from the manufacturing processes for all those green power sources.
Here is the Wikipage I was referring to: Wind power in the United States. I don’t know where they get their numbers or how reliable they are. The article also says that the U.S. Department of Energy has a report which expects 20% of US energy to come from windmills by 2030, and that the capacity has doubled within the last three years.
Portugal, which is much poorer than the USA, gets 17% of its electricity from windmills. Denmark, which is much more densely populated that the USA – resulting in fewer desirable locations, gets around 20% (2008). Is there anything so very special about the USA that makes it impossible to do something like these two examples? Also considering that you get to do it with newer more efficient technology.
The numbers given in that Wikipedia page conflict with themselves. 40,000MW is just over 1%, and that’s nameplate capacity. Based on our annual power consumption in 2007, 100% is 3,170,000MW. None of that takes into account peak demand and low demand. It’s just an annual average. The 3% number comes from an LA Times article that doesn’t site any sources.
Of course poorer countries can cover their power demands with wind better than we can. Their power demands are minuscule. I think long term investment in wind is essential. It certainly looks better than solar. But we need to do that and cut fossil fuel use and we need to do it now. I still don’t see it happening without nuclear.
Nuclear does nothing for peak demand nor low demand. As the whole world has seen, you can’t turn nuclear up and down, on and off in any time frame that could respond to changes in power demands, much less true emergencies.
That you for pointing out that poorer countries can use wind. This is even more important to keep in mind considering how ridiculously expensive and complicated nuke power is, not to mention proliferation of weapons grade nuclear material and the 100s of billions of dollars it takes to safely decommission, transport and store 1000s of tons of spent fuel rods.
It’s ridiculous for pro-nukers to even suggest poorer countries could ever do anything with nuke other than irradiate themselves and the entire planet.
Nuclear deniers don’t care. The important thing is that nothing threaten their beloved nuclear power plants.
Your assurances that Green Santa Claus will deliver wind and solar infrastructure capable of replacing coal and nuke plants as soon as the PTB let him do nothing to reassure me, I am sorry. I would love to git rid of nuke and coal power, show me a realistic scheme for doing this and I will change my mind.
Japan's Nuclear Rescuers: 'Inevitable Some of Them May Die Within Weeks' | Fox News The workers in the plant all expect to die from fighting the ongoing disaster. Anybody want to put a cost on that?
Cold Fusion again?
I have hopes that there is something to this, but unfortunately most claims have fizzed and most of the information I have seen report that they are still not allowing an independent investigation of their machines.
The discussion at Ars Technica mentions several reasons why that Italian claim is doubtful.
I imagine it’s less than the cost of lives from climate change. Since nobody has provided any scaleup numbers in terms of materials, labor, and manufacturing capability on any alternative to nuclear power, I can only assume favorable numbers dont exist.
I fully agree though, that all current nuclear power plants need to be shut down ASAP. They aren’t safe.
Nobody has ever died from climate change, so it’s not dangerous.
Do you have any scaleup numbers in terms of materials, labor and manufacturing capability for nuclear power?
I can only assume the numbers, if you could ever find them, would change your mind.
For instance, here are some numbers:
Cost uncertainty dogs the Jaitapur nuclear project
Multiply all those fiascos by 10,000 if you’re going to “scale up” nuclear.
Nuclear sucks dude. Even in places where they want to build them, they still can’t build them. The nuclear industry scammed you. It’s okay, move on with the rest of us!
Renewables can do just fine for us for the next 50-100 years. I don’t think it’s worth speculating what we’ll be using for energy over 100 years from now. We need to be taking chunks out of our CO2 usage right now.
The rest of the world, the developing world, isn’t going to ever come close to using the kinds of energy the US does. We have a long history of being able to waste gobs of energy on everything and our infrastructure reflects that. Other countries won’t go through the huge waste phase. As they develop, their energy efficiency will develop too. I think we’ll be amazed how little energy people require even here in the US, as we become more and more efficient.