You can’t quote a cost per megawatt with wind without a qualifying average wind component. They are tremendously inefficient as the wind speed decreases relative to it’s peak performance speed. It would probably make more sense to put micro wind generators on each house than it would to build vertical landfill.
Except that micro wind generators are far more expensive per kwh.
I don’t know what the averages are across the country but I do know that our wind farms are considered to be in some of the best locations possible. After all, Oklahoma is “where the wind comes sweepin down the plain”. This leads me to believe that 8 cents is at the low end of spectrum. While micro generators would certainly help resolve the transmission problem, as Gangster Octopus points out, they are much more expensive per kwh.
While “blowing your own” has a certain romantic appeal, most residential sites are just not very great as wind resources, with the exception of some rural or at least semi-rural locations. OTOH there are some new skyscrapers being designed that have windturbines as part of their design that will allow them to provide some of their own power. There is also the attraction of using superior wind resources closer to populations and to extant transmission, especially if that transmission was already due for an upgrade - such as many Great Lakes locations. But then build-out costs more given the lake location.
But there are many other forms of distributed power generation (here talking from individual homes to individual communities) that can be chosen from based on local best resources. Advanced biomass for combined heat and power (article beyond subscription wall), factory rooftops for solar, etc. And in some of those cases the costs of installing distributed generation with local storage enough to handle spikes in demand by be much cheaper than the cost of upgrading bottlenecked transmission lines and building new substations. Again, no single answer and our crappy and degraded transmission infrastructure is a major albatross around our necks.
BTW, I will unsurprised to see Pickens return to this project within a year as he works out something to get that Texas state funded transmission build-out to get sped up a little. There’s going to be some wheelin’ and dealin’ yet methinks.
Gah! One of you is grossly abusing your units. You cannot convert from watts (or kilowatts, or megawatts) to watt-hours (or kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours). That’s like trying to say “My car gets a fuel efficiency of 60 miles per hour”, or “I weigh 5 foot 11”.
There are actually two cost associated with electricity, a cost for power, and a cost for energy. The cost for power is basically the cost of building the infrastructure, and is paid once for that infrastructure: If it costs a billion dollars to build a 1 gigawatt power plant plus transmission lines etc., then that power plant has a power cost of one dollar per watt. That 1 gigawatt power plant, operating at peak, produces enough power to keep ten million 100 watt lightbulbs shining.
But then you also have to pay a continuing cost for fuel, maintenance, etc., and that gives you a cost for energy, which might be something like 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. That means that if you keep ten of those 100 watt lightbulbs shining for an hour, you’ll use up 8 cents worth of electricity.
A nit to pick: the cost of the infrastructure is also calculated into the kWh calculation - how much power it is expected to produce in its lifetime divided by that infrastructure cost including lost investment opportunity and servicing the loan. For some power source - eg nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar - those are the major factors of the kWh cost, not fuel and maintenance.
You’re right. It’s a shortcut that we use because all of our electricity is sold in hours and so we often leave it off. It’s a bad habit.
Ok, so, re-framed.
Wind (& etc.) power is a good investment as long as it replaces gasoline, as everything else is cheaper. After the moment the last gallon of gasoline has been replaced, you will lose money on this investment.
Windmills also kill a lot of birds, especially raptors.
Your claim is disputed by wind proponents, who give birds more credit that that.
There’s a wind farm near me. Never have I seen a pile of dead birds at the foot of the towers. Either ours are smarter than the average bird or the janitor is very efficient.
Or, the answer could be fnord.
Not janitors, scavengers.
http://wfs.sdstate.edu/wfsdept/Publications/Theses/Leddy,%20Krecia%20L.%20M.S.-1996.pdf
About 35% of Golden Eagle deaths in CA were caused by wind turbines:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/download/goea.pdf
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1674/0003-0031(2000)143[0041%3ABMAWWT]2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.outlierproductions.com/Resources/Barrios%20bird%20wind.pdf
http://dvbrtf.org/alt_doc/raptor_acuity_and_wind_turbine_blade_conspicuity_mcissac.pdf
*Furthermore, relative to other bird species in the area, the
turbines kill a disproportionate number of diurnal raptors (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Howell and
Noone 1992, Orloff and Flannery 1992).
*
There are hundreds of studies on Google scholar that show that wind turbines kill birds, esp raptors. Now it’s true that other structures also kill birds, but wind turbines are often placed in areas that bird migrate thru or hunt in.
Colibri, do you have anything to add?
The problem with wind energy is that it doesn’t scale up linearly. It is after all dependent on meteorological conditions. You can’t simply expand and maintain the same energy output per turbine. Your first site was presumedly the location with the best conditions. Your second site was slightly inferior and your third site a little worse than that. You’ll eventually find that your first hundred sites produce as much energy as the next two hundred sites. And those two hundred sites produce as much as the next five hundred sites. You’re going to reach a point where there are no sites left where it’s worth building turbines.
There is room for expanding wind (and water and geothermal) energy production and we should be doing that. But keep it realistic. These energy sources are not going to become our main power supply.
This is indeed a problem, and it applies to any energy which is dependent on specific, and relatively scarce conditions.
I just finished reading an optimistic article about wind power, saying that it has grown at 15% per year, while nuclear is staying flat. And since nuclear provides about 14% of the world’s energy and wind and solar provide about 1.5%, that means in 20 years wind and solar power will have three times the total output of nuclear.
This, however, is a ridiculous statement. Wind power is in its infancy. The fact that it managed a 15% growth rate over the last couple of years tells you just about nothing about what its potential is for long-term growth, and assuming exponential growth indefinitely is crazy. It’s exactly the kind of innumeracy you see in pop articles on all kinds of issues.
Right now, wind power is being built in the best locations on the planet. There’s a very limited supply of them, especially in the regions where wind power has grown the fastest (Europe).
The same is true of oil production. Once upon a time, you could just jab a hole in the ground in Texas, or in the middle east, and oil would bubble out. Growth in the early years of the oil industry was astounding. But then the low hangers were used up, and we had to start going offshore to find the big fields. Then those started getting harder to find, and we had to start looking at thngs like oil shales and tar sands.
Typically, what you get in these kinds of scenarios is an early exponential growth as a new breaththrough or technology opens up a market and fills it rapidly with the most efficient sources, then a gradual slowing until you get a longer, linear line as the much larger, but less cost effective sources are slowly used up, followed by the curve eventually turning downward as it becomes too expensive to exploit the last, least efficient resources.
We don’t really know what the curve will look like for wind, because we don’t know what the future price of oil will be, or what contributions other technologies will be. Also, solar is nowhere near as close to its theoretical maximum efficiency as is wind. There is still the possibility of some big improvements in solar technology, whereas at this point wind is becoming fairly mature and we’re talking about shaving a few percentage points here and there with more efficient motors and controllers and such. But we’re not going to find a way to get, say, a 5-fold increase in output from the same area.
Wow, as if linear extrapolation weren’t dangerous enough. I’m as big a fan of wind as anyone, but predictions like that are just setting folks up for disappointment.
Joy of linear extrapolation:
I like to think that realistically wind power could max out at five percent of our current energy needs. Nice, but it’s not going to change the big picture.
It is too bad that windfarms kill birds. However, oil wells kill people, so which is worse?
Apparently windmills are too different from trees for birds to notice and avoid. Perhaps if the windmills became truly huge, they might rotate slowly enough that birds could control where the fuck they’re flying.
Wind farms kill people too, ehe? It’s pretty dangerous setting the things up, and they need periodic maintenance as well. Whenever you have really big moving things you have the potential for injury and death.
You’d have been better off saying ‘well, oil kills birds as well’. Personally, I think that whether or not wind farms kill wild birds is, by and large, irrelevant…I think that it’s pointed out mostly as a dig at the enviro-weenies, who think that wind power is totally benign (and also that it doesn’t cost much, can be used everywhere and can scale up to meet the majority of our energy needs, etc etc).
-XT
TAANSTAAFL. In other words, all energy has drawbacks.