This was told to me by a friend of my brother who works in the civil service. It concerns those big ol’ wind-powered generators which one sees around the place now and again.
According to him, it costs more money to construct a wind turbine than the turbine will ever produce in electricty throughout its entire working life (or as near enough as to make next to no economic sense).
Is this really the case, or is this someone getting his facts a bit wonky…?
I’m not sure what the useful working life of one of these machines is, or how much power they can expect to produce. Anyone know, for example, how many turbines would be needed to power London or Chicago or somewhere like that?
Tony Blair was on the radio last night trying to persude farmers to whack these things up all over the place to earn themselves more cash now the sheep have gone.
Cheers,
Rob S.
There are some lovely Government Sponsored wind sculptures out east of the Bay Area (San Francisco,Oakland) that appear to be working beautifully. Actually, they have been there working handsomely for a number of years and more power (no pun) to 'em.
In a more personal vein, my buddy in Montana has a home with a wind-vane tied to a generator. It’s part of his back-up system but hey, when the private sector, or private individual, is willing to invest in something you gotta believe it has value.
The technology is still being worked on. The older versions might cost more to build than they could make, but it ain’t so with newer ones. Of course these are too expensive for the average farmer to buy; so it might be more of a perception that the guy will have to mortgage his whole property and won’t live to see his investment returned or something. Wind power provideds a very small percentage of the total anywhere, but don’t dismiss it completely just because it’s not perfectly develloped yet. Here in Alberta there have been some sets of turbines set up by the govt… elsewhere too. Among some people the attitude of “if it ain’t perfect today it’s useless” is quite prevelent. AFAIK, wind power is still expensive and beyond the reach of large-scale use, but give it time…
I meant the biggest, bestest, brand-spankenist newest, highest-techist, efficientist ( ok, ok) wind turbines are too expensive for the average farmer. There are smaller cheaper versions that do work well and will give you a return. Friend-of-brother doesn’t own stock in coal or nuclear power does he?
There used to be a myth than wind turbines weren’t even worth it in terms of energy - that the energy necessary to build & erect a wind turbine exceeded its lifetime output. This is manifestly not true - a modern wind turbine is paid back, energy-wise, in months.
Economically, however, it’s another story. The price per kWh for a top-notch, hypermodern, big-turbines-only offshore turbine installation is along the lines of 0.05-0.06$ per kWh, but a modern coal-fired plant can produce power at 0.04$/kWh, AFAIK. (Anthracite will presumably be around with better numbers.) Smaller turbines make for even higher prices.
To make matters worse, wind power rather obviously depends on the weather, making it necessary for a turbine owner to stay connected to the grid in order to sell his surplus and buy extra as needed. And obviously, the power companies are not paying top dollar for a source this unreliable.
So without some sort of public encouragement, a wind turbine probably isn’t a good investment.
Furthermore, the one-turbine-per-farm model is rather inefficient (and, IMHO, an eyesore). Better to build fewer but bigger turbines where the wind conditions are favorable, for instance off the coast. This, however, is probably a task better handled by power utilities than by private investors.
I have no affiliation with any of these sites, but I have done some research (personal interest) into wind driven power generation. It seems legit; several sites can give specific figures for capacity of individual turbines or wind farms. I haven’t looked lately, but they produce a lot of electricity, and do it very efficiently and cleanly.
In the right environment (that is, an environment with wind and without lots of birds to fly into them and get scrambled), I would say YES, wind turbines are worth it.
The total fuel-related cost for a US coal plant at the busbar varies from 0.0085$/kWh to 0.025$/kWh, but is most typically around 0.013$/kWh to 0.017$/kWh. Note though that this is just fuel plus O&M plus emissions costs, not including construction cost. I have no idea what construction cost plus the above amount works out to over the life of the plant, without digging through my archives at work later.
uhm… how do you figure these numbers?
what I mean is that I don’t think they take into consideration the environmental cost of using coal plants. If you look at those I think turbines will turn out to be relatively less expensive.
Allong the same lines, what other ‘hidden’ cost are there for coal plants and wind turbines?
Fuel cost
Fuel transportation and handling cost
Plant maintenance costs
Replacement energy cost due to unavailability and derate
Lost energy sales due to plant auxiliary power required for operations
Ash disposal costs
Pulverizer rejects disposal costs
Scrubber waste disposal cost
SO[sub]2[/sub] allowance costs (if any)
I do not include the “cost” to the environment of NO[sub]x[/sub] (we do not have a good system of allowances for NO[sub]x[/sub] set up here), nor for the “cost” of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, since I have no easy way to quantify that. If someone wants to supply me with a guess of how much 1 ton of CO[sub]2[/sub] should be assessed, I can give some better answers.
I haven’t heard anything about the East Bay wind farms recently, but 10-15 years ago they were under some fire due to the fact that raptors (some of which are protected, like golden eagles) were smacking into them–they built a couple hundred windmills along the ridge line, right where the predators glide along looking for bunnies to munch on. It’s not a problem if the fans aren’t running–they can see them then–but if they’re spinning, they don’t necessarily see them in time.
Offshore would probably get rid of the problem (might even clear off a few seagulls–yay!), but that’s gotta be WAY more expensive.
I got my numbers from a Danish newspaper article on the subject, but I’ve stumbled across this site, which I’d guess is the journalists source: http://www.windpower.dk/core.htm -
This paper addresses some of the questions of cost calculation, although it’s focused on the energy budget more than the monetary one: http://www.windpower.org/publ/enbal.pdf
Actually, they have been there working handsomely for a number of years and more power (no pun) to 'em.
ok, ok) wind turbines are too expensive for the average farmer. There are smaller cheaper versions that do work well and will give you a return. Friend-of-brother doesn’t own stock in coal or nuclear power does he? 