by The_Toecutter » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 06:52:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
quotes wind as costing at least twice as much... maybe they're biased...
First, if you check that source, they specifically compare wind costs with everything else in the UK, one place in particular where wind is more expensive. However, even there, when you add in the costs associated with the CO2 generated, onshore wind is 3.7 cents compared to 5 cents for coal, and offshore wind 5.5 cents. Add backup to the wind and they're still comparable. Of course, that CO2 is part of coal's social costs and not basic generation costs.
Further, from that same source:
The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.Take those social costs and add them to the price of coal or nuclear and add wind's to wind. Of course, it is fair to say this is outdated, as it's from 1991. At that particular time, they'd be about even. Now, with wind cheaper but the overall social costs similar, do the math.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere's an interesting deconstruction of how a wind farm becomes profitable through subsidies...
http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/economics.html And if you check the source
Financing Wind Power Projects, it counts the turbine as generating profit for only 10 years. The turbines last more like 20 or 30 years. Further more, this $1 million 'subsidy' per turbine isn't actually a subsidy, but tax exempt revenue. There's quite a difference between the two, despite that the source calls it a subsidy and then admits outright that it's a tax-exempt revenue instead. The government is not giving the turbine developer $1 mil of that $1.5 mil as subsidy, the government is exempting $1 million of $1.5 million in revenue from taxation.
Further more, that $.018/kWh partial tax subsidy is only given for 10 years. The plant lasts 20+ years, but that particular link only counts in 10 years of operation. It claims the PTC will account for 1/3 of the original investment, but since it only counts 10 years and not the 20-30 year lifespan of the turbine, it is a very flawed number when it uses that to find the cost per kWh.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't universally condemn wind power; Its just more expensive in most scenarios than coal or nuclear. In some places its cost effective, but its delusional to insist that wind can provide our base power requirements for similar costs to coal or nuclear plants today.
A few things those links did not mention:
a) The amount per kWh coal is subsidized
b) The average cost per kWh coal is in the U.S.
Some prime locations for coal are at around $.03/kWh. But cases of such are exceptions and not the rule.
Page 10 of the following source lists coal at $.048-.055/kWh. Wind is listed at $.04-.06/kWh
without the production tax credit. With the tax credit, wind is quoted at 3.3-5.3c/kWh.
http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/grad_papers/windenergy.pdf
Plus you have to add in the fact that lenders are not so willing to grant loans to produce wind farms, and they suffer from higher interest rates. Page 9 of that link notes:
The most important of those reasons is the fact that the wind energy is still conceived as unreliable although it has steadily progressed to a point where its costs are comparable to those of other energy sourcs. Lenders still are not willing to offer loans as favorable as the ones they offer to conventional sources of energy.
A study in the Lawrence Berkely Laboratory found that a 50 MW wind farm delivering power at less than 5 c/kWh would generate electricity at 3.69c/kWh if it could enjoy the typical natural-gas project financing terms.
Further is the added social costs of coal. External costs are quoted at least 3c/kWh for coal on air pollution alone. That bumps it up to at least 7.8c/kWh when air pollution is factored in, making wind look even better.
Wonder what the subsidy for coal electricity is? The government just approved billions more in subsidies for the coal industry this year.
Each $1 billion to the coal electricity industry in actual subsidies(and not tax free revenue) adds about $.00055/kWh to coal. (1 billion divided by quantity 3.7 trillion kWh times .52)
If we got $10 billion in subsidies per year to the coal industry, that's nearly 1/2 cent per kWh in subsidy to the coal industry. I don't know the exact figure in subsidy to the industry, but this year it increased an extra $2 billion over 10 years on top of what they already get.
Stanford's Civil Engineering Department concluded that in 2001 wind had become cheaper than coal once you count in the social costs associated with generating electricity from coal.
http://ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2001/2001-08-24-07.asp
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
by EnergySpin » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 21:00:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It is based on 54c/kWh/X, where X is the number of years. It assumes all cost is capital and that operation and maintenance costs nothing.
DOE's estimate (and I cannot find the link now) is that maintenance amounts to 0.65c/KWh amortized over the 20 year life time of the turbine
Danish Wind Industry association estimates are 1c/KWhr
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost of maintenance cost is a fixed amount per year for the regular service of the turbines, but some people prefer to use a fixed amount per kWh of output in their calculations, usually around 0.01 USD/kWh. The reasoning behind this method is that tear and wear on the turbine generally increases with increasing production.
Note that the majority of the original (capital) cost is NOT the equipment for the turbine (rotor, gearbox, generator) but the cement tower which for all intent and purposes can last 100 years (the first buildings out of cement were build around the early 20th century and the ones that were not taken down for further development are still standing)
Reading further along in the web site:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he price of a new set of rotor blades, a gearbox, or a generator is usually in the order of magnitude of 15-20 per cent of the price of the turbine.
So in order during an 100 year life time of a wind farm .... total capital cost would be twice the initial investment. Maintenance (even at the 2% scenario) would double it, so during an 100 yr life time, the cost would be 80% of what I calculated.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
by cube » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 22:35:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')n a nut shell a utility company has 2 expenses:
1) creating the electricity
2) distributing the electricity to it's customers
...........
Great thread.
Cube, to solve your problem as to which is better, you need to know at least two things;
1. What proportion of the total cost is creation and what is distribution?
2. What do you mean by 'better'?
.............
A2: This one is easy. What is better?.....whatever makes my electricity bill go down.
by Optimist » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 16:56:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever with the population explosion the Mayans' were cutting trees down faster then what nature could replenish. I think we know how the story ends from here.
YES - The Mayans might still be around, but they were overtaking by the technologically supperior Spanish. Thus it was not the introduction of technology that lead to their demise, but rather the lack thereof.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o what technology will solve PO? The fact is there is none.
More precisely, if you keep your head in the sand you will find none. Let us start with the short term solution: coal liquification and gasification. These two technologies can replace all uses of crude oil. Using known technology, both can be implemented in a short period of time. Not ideal from an environmental point of view, but hey, nice to know there is a way out of the jam.
Long term: Who knows? In spite of our best efforts, the future remains unknown. I would think TDP, or a similar technology that can convert waste products to fuel and energy has the most potential. Toe_cutter favors an electrical solution. Fact it we get enough energy from the sun to meet all our needs. Thanks to technology we will eventually figure out a way to do it.
Let's look at some numbers: Quoting myself from
http://peakoil.com/fortopic5194-15.html $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut let's look at some numbers. It is estimated that land photosynthesis contributes 120 billion metric tons per year of carbon, according to
http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/e ... eochem.htm In carbohydrate form (C6H12O6) this represents a total biomass of 300 billion t/yr. Let us assume you only collect 10% of that, or 30 billion t/yr. According to CWT, they can convert 1 ton of waste into 2 barrels of oil, so the yield would be 60 billion barrels of oil per year. Global demand for crude is expected to be 81.8 million barrels per day for 2005, according to
http://www.axcessnews.com/business_102804b.shtml or about 30 billion barrels for the year. Oops, we have too much biomass.
Oh well, we'll have to take it slowly then...
