Wind Power is the cheapest source of power today

[JohnWxy]

Wind potential for the U.S. is 3 times the total demand for electricity. Storage of power won't be necessary until wind generated electricity reaches about 20% of the total generated. At that point wind power would about equal the electricity generated by coal fires plants.

Wind power growth in the U.S. in 2005 was 38%. IT would have been greater but the Wind Turbine manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to handle the current demand. Capacity increases are in the works at this time. Given enough capacity we would achieve 100% growth per year for the near future. 100% growth for a few years would result in a significant growth in wind power electrical production capacity.


www.awea.org

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Cost2001.PDF



Fuel Levelized costs ...............(cents/kWh) (1996)
Coal..................................... 4.8-5.5 (more like 7 cents now)
Gas ..................................... 3.9-4.4(2.5 to 3 times this now)
Hydro ...................................5.1-11.3
Biomass ................................5.8-11.6
Nuclear ...............................11.1-14.5
Wind (without PTC) .................4.0-6.0 (as 2004)
Wind (with PTC)......................3.3-5.3

One study found that if wind plants were financed on the same terms as natural gas
plants, their cost would drop by nearly 40% (resulting cost: 2.4 to 3.6 cents per kiloWhr - without PTC).

The cost of natural gas has increased since 1996, so that the levelized cost of gas–
fired power plants would now be considerably higher. In January 2001, the cost of
natural gas generated power was running as high as 15 cents to 20 cents per kWh in
certain markets <3>. The cost of wind power, meanwhile, has declined slightly.
Four additional points about the economics of wind energy should be considered when
estimating its relative cost.

First, the cost of wind energy is strongly affected by average wind speed and the size
of a wind farm. Since the energy that the wind contains is a function of the cube of its
speed, small differences in average winds from site to site mean large differences in
production and, therefore, in cost. The same wind plant will, all other factors being
equal, generate electricity at a cost of 4.8 cents/kWh in 7.16 m/s (16 mph) winds, 3.6
cents/kWh at 8.08 m/s (18 mph) winds, and 2.6 cents/kWh in 9.32 m/s (20.8 mph)
winds. Larger wind farms provide economies of scale. A 3-MW wind plant generating
electricity at 5.9 cents per kWh would, all other factors being equal, generate electricity
at 3.6 cents/kWh if it were 51 MW in size.

Second, wind energy is a highly capital-intensive technology; its cost reflects the
capital required for equipment manufacturing and plant construction. This in turn means
that wind's economics are highly sensitive to the interest rate charged on that capital.
One study found that if wind plants were financed on the same terms as natural gas
plants, their cost would drop by nearly 40%. <4>

Third, the cost of wind energy is dropping faster than the cost of conventional
generation. While the cost of a new gas plant has fallen by about one-third over the
past decade, the cost of wind has dropped by 15% with each doubling of installed
capacity worldwide, and capacity has doubled three times during the 1990s. Wind
power today costs only about one-fifth as much as in the mid-1980s, and its cost is
expected to decline by another 35-40% by 2006. <5>

Fourth, if environmental costs were included in the calculation of the costs of electricity
generation, wind energy's competitiveness would increase further because of its low
environmental impacts. Wind energy produces no emissions, so there is no damage to
the environment or public health from emissions and wastes such as are associated
with the production of electricity from conventional power plants. Wind energy is also
free of the environmental costs resulting from mining or drilling, processing, and
shipping a fuel. <6>

NOTES
1. Levelized costing calculates in current dollars all capital, fuel, and operating and maintenance costs
associated with the plant over its lifetime and divides that total cost by the estimated output in kWh over
the lifetime of the plant.
2. California Energy Commission (CEC) Energy Technology Status Report 1996. Sacramento. All CEC
estimates are in constant dollars as of 1993, with costs "levelized over a typical lifetime (usually 30
years) beginning in 2000" (p. 57). All cost estimates are for investor-owned utility (IOU) ownership.
3. Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2001, p B1.
4. Wiser, Ryan, and Edward Kahn. 1996. "Alternative Windpower Ownership Structures." LBNL-
38921. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. May.
5. Chapman, Jamie, Steven Wiese, Edgar DeMeo, and Adam Serchuk. 1998. "Expanding Wind
Power: Can Americans Afford It?" Research Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: Renewable Energy Policy
Project.
6. State attempts to set up a process by which some of the environmental costs of electricity production,
or externalities, could be taken into account in economic calculations have focused on air emissions
alone and set externalities estimates in the range of 3-6 cents per kWh for coal and 0.5 to 2 cents for
natural gas. For a comprehensive study of environmental costs, see Richard Ottinger et al.

[Lethe]

1. there are wind turbines all over texas now

especially in west texas

[OhioNerd]

2. It's already been explained to you by more than one person...

It's already been explained to you by more than one person that wind power is completely unworkable as a large scale power production strategy. It falls several orders of magnitude short of need and it only APPEARS to be a good idea to people who don't know the difference between Watts and Watt Hours, never mind the problem of actually getting these massive wind farms through the zoning and permitting problems. Oh and, don't forget the EPA. Good luck with THEM.

Wind power is great for small scale power production such as setting up a windmill in your back yard, IF you have the acreage to do it and the zoning board lets you.

With respect, you may want to spend less time cutting and pasting, and more time trying to understand the scale of the problem.

There are some power production methods well sutied to large scale production and some methods suitable to small scale production. Unfortunately, wind power falls into the second category, as does solar, geothermal and heat-pumps.


On that note, imagine what we could accomplish in power savings if every new home built had geothermal heating & cooling, solar hot water and passive solar heating, ALL of which are very cost competative with other methods and ALL of which are well proven technologies that have a huge impact on a home's energy usage.

[kestrel91316]

3. You might want to hurry up and inform Los Angeles Dept of

Water and Power, so they can shut down the giant wind farms on the Altamont Pass and elsewhere that are obviously providing a significant amount of FAKE electricity to the region.

I'm sure they'll want to know they are not getting anything for their money.

[OhioNerd]

4. Really?

OK, so lets talk about that ONE example.

Can you tell me how many watt/hours LA needs and how many watt/hours that wind farm produces?

I'd also be interested in knowing what LA does when the wind isn't blowing.



Believe me, I would LOVE to have someone show me how wind power can be truly effective for reliable, large scale power production. But so far, the only thing I've seen for my entire life is wind power advocates who want to ignore the laws of physics or who don't understand the questions of scale or who want to pretend that a wind farms peak capacity is the same thing as it's average daily production.


PLEASE, make me a believer.

[bostonbabs]

6. ..wind does not have to blow in L.A.

....you see wind electricity travels at the speed of light as all electricity does and it goes on to our grid.....the wind electricity that we create here in Palm Springs can be used anywhere.....don't you even know that?

[OhioNerd]

7. Gosh, really?

Electricity travels at the speed of light?

Golly gee wow!

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Not actually true, sadly...

There's a thread here you should probably look at:



Huge amounts of electricity are already lost due to running it over thousands of miles of transmission lines: And that's with most of it it being produced fairly locally:



(from wikipedia)

Any plans to power cities half a continent away with renewables would also have include power production on a significantly larger scale than consumption, and a massively upgraded grid to carry the huge amounts with redundancy. If you're generating 1GW in PS and running a cable over to LA, you'd probably get just enough at the other end to run a lawnmower - for five minutes, before a wire breaks in the arse-end of Texas.

[electron_blue]

12. I'm curious - what laws of physics do you think wind farms are ignoring?

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Generally, it's the first law of thermodynamics.

The windfarms themselves follow it nicely, of course - they have to. But advocates of windfarms tend to forget that if the wind isn't blowing, the energy has to come from somewhere else - because you can't get something for nothing. The "somewhere else" tends to be in a blind spot for most fans of renewable power.

[IrateCitizen]

14. There are only 2 sources for large scale power production...

... at least "large scale" by today's definition. Those are nuclear and fossil fuels.

That being said, we may be reaching the point at which we can no longer rely on "large scale power production" and may instead have to get used to making do with less. The environmental impacts alone should tell us so.

Furthermore, neither wind nor solar nor nuclear can be described as "non-polluting". There are plenty of emissions that go into the production of solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear plants (and fuel). There is the mining of resources, the transportation of resources, the production processes, and the transportation of the final products. Granted, such emissions are lower than those for just burning fossil fuels outright -- but to characterize them all as "zero emissions" as the OP did is disingenuous.

Essentially, our choice comes down to advanced industrial civilization or coming more in line with environmental realities. To expect that we can maintain the kind of energy usage to which we have become accustomed AND maintain a habitable planet is perhaps the greatest fool's errand in the history of human civilization.

[OhioNerd]

18. Correct, but...

"There are only 2 sources for large scale power production... at least "large scale" by today's definition. Those are nuclear and fossil fuels."

That IS true, but we can shift to nuclear power for the large scale stuff and use the alternatives on individual levels in our houses:
1) Floursecent light bulbs instead of incandescent.
2) Solar hot water.
3) Geothermal and heat pumps.
4) Passive solar.
5) Energy efficient building practices like insulated concrete forms, "under floor" radiant heat, structural insulated panels and programmable thermostats.

Even things like recycling aluminum cans save a bunch of energy and keep greenhoue gasses out of the atmosphere.

I think we as a society focus too much on the big stuff and forget what we can do on an individual level.

By the way, as regards nuclear waste, is it really waste?
Radioactive material, BY DEFINITION, contains energy. We just haven't figured out how to extract is.

It wasn't that long ago that we thought oil was useless.

[The Straight Story]

31. I used to work for a wind energy company

Previously called Zond (still is in manufacturing division) and was bought up by Enron.

We generated enough electricity to power the whole antelope valley in CA.

A fellow co-worker of mine designed the site here:
http://www.wind.enron.com/

Which has some good data.

We employed meterologists and top notch engineers on these projects and were so successful in some ways we actually turned off some turbines. Pretty messed up IMHO but it made business sense (bean counter sense, did not want to generate too much for a variety of reasons which still don't make sense to me).

from the site:
The addition of a single 1.5 MW wind turbine generator, capable of producing approximately 4 million kilowatt-hours each year, would eliminate 5.6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

It is an amazing technology and I am glad I got the chance to be a small part of it and learn more.

[JohnWxy]

46. This is an important post. Good data from someone personally involved.

Thank you. Bookmarked this!

[bostonbabs]

5. whoa...there OhioNerd....

....I live in Palm Springs California and we have 3500 wind turbines in our "backyard". We have 5 generations of wind turbines , all of them made outside of the United States, the newest ones are 300 feet high ( the oldest about 60 feet) the newest ones provide for 2200 homes per tower per hour....they are efficient machines that need little maintenance all from FREE WIND.......maybe that's why Andrew Fastow (Enron)and his wife took 16 million dollars of their own money and invested in them. ....Countries all over the planet are using them.....
your argument that zoning and permits are too tough is meaningless to the argument that wind power is viable and the same for your EPA argument...Whitman gave the embarrassing reason that wind turbines were not good because it killed birds....the EPA is run by BUSHITES....THE OIL KINGS.....DUH and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission ( FERC) all BUSH appointees regulate the industry.
Oh and the cost of bringing geothermal to homes???.Please.
Watt and Watt Hours?....sell it down the road.
California uses 4% of it's electricity from wind...the entire country is 1/2 of 1%.....

[OhioNerd]

8. "Watts and Watt/Hours?....sell it down the road."

I'm sorry...
Are you SURE you want to go with that statement?

[bostonbabs]

9. it's already been explained to you before

....you think wind has to blow in L.A. to get wind energy in L.A.....duh....and your retort to all above arguments is the threat that you will tell us the difference between Watt vs watt hours...what a joke.

[OhioNerd]

11. It's "Watt/Hours", not "watt hours".

It's "Watt/Hours", not "watt hours" and yes; it does matter how it's written. I suggest you take the time to find out WHY it matters. It would be quite illuminating for you.

[jpak]

15. Wind power can't operate a large scales?? - don't think so

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-03-07T200824Z_01_L0756533_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-WIND.xml&archived=False

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The global wind energy industry is expected to enjoy continued strong growth in coming years with total installed capacity seen more than tripling from current levels by 2014, an industry survey showed on Tuesday.

Over the next eight years, international installed capacity is expected to increase to about 210,000 megawatts from today's installed total of about 59,000 megawatts, a study by the German Wind Energy Institute (DEWI) showed.

The study, conducted on behalf of Hamburg Messe in the run-up to an industry fair in May, identified Germany, France, Spain and the United States as key future markets.

"The international wind energy market, which showed growth rates in 2005 of 16 percent in Europe, and as much as 73 percent outside of Europe, will continue to boom", the report said.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

Record Year for Global Wind Energy
Global Wind Power Market Increased by 43 Percent in 2005

February 27, 2006
Brussels, Belgium The global wind energy sector experienced another record year in 2005. According to the figures released by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) for 2005, the installation of 11,769 megawatts (MW), which represents a 43.4% increase in annual additions to the global market, was up from 8,207 MW in the previous year. The total value of new generating equipment installed was more than Euro 12 billion, or US$14 billion.

"Wind energy offers more than just power: it has the potential to support economic development, improve the security of energy supply, mitigate hydrocarbon price volatility, create jobs and contribute to substantial CO2 reductions. Without political support, however, wind energy remains at a competitive disadvantage due to distortions in the world's electricity markets created by decades of massive financial, political and structural support to conventional technologies." -- Arthouros Zervos, Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), Chairman

The total installed wind power capacity now stands at 59,322 MW worldwide, an increase of 25% compared to 2004.

<more>

[OhioNerd]

16. Then think harder.

How many acres of land given over to wind farming does it take to produce one megawatt?

When you get done with that question, you can explain how you are going to make that power output continuous when the wind doesn't blow continuously

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Well, land can be dual use...

So long as the turbine blades miss the ground by more than the height of a cow, you can use the land for grazing at the same time: If they miss by the height of a combine, you can grow crops. The only land you really 'loose' is the footprint of the tower base, which is pretty small.

Good luck on the second question. Apparently it will be illegal for the wind to stop, or something... :)

[OhioNerd]

28. Dual Use?

Well, the dual use argument is not completely without merit, but you know as well as I do that there's only so far you can stretch that.

Look, there's no point in kidding ourselves. For people who have sufficient land, a friendly zoning board and a location that's moderately breezy, a personal windmill is a great way to make the wheel spin backwards. (On the meter)

I used to know a guy who had one. Actually, he was in the business. Still is apparently. I'm sure he's be glad to sell you a windmill or some solar panels. http://bannertownpower.com/

But large scale production? Well, some of these folks who treat wind power like a religion might not want to hear the heresey, but you worship at the alter of physics. In other words, you know better.

We might disagree about some things relating to Global Warming, but we both know that alternative power sources have to be used in a way that plays to their strengths, not in a way that fits the fantasies of the True Believers.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. True enough...

Wind power's two main con's are, that they need a back-up, and no-one wants them. Well, they want them, but not in thier back yard. That can possibly be changed with new policies and procedures: I don't view it as an impossibility to make people swallow wind farms, and if it spoils thier million-dollar views, tough shit.

The back up is the main problem. On-demand power comes from hydroelectric, NG plants, and.... err, that's it. Without one of them, it can only be a minor power source. Bigger that it is at the moment, sure, but still minor. Denmark, being a cold country populated by scantily clad maidens, has it lucky: Heating demand during cold, windy weather makes wind power quite useful - in the same way that A/C demand makes solar power in CA useful. But as baseloads for industry, they're both hopeless without a backup. Hydro is limited by terrain, and NG by supply: We probably do need a Flux Capacitor - maybe even a Continuum Transfunctioner - to find that nordic paradise...

[OhioNerd]

36. But again...

If we use EXISTING technology in ways that play to that technology's strengths, then we might find that we're further ahead than we thought.

Prime example:

EVERY new home being built should use:

a) Modern energy efficient construction techniques.
b) "Under-Floor" radiant heating.
c) Solar hot water.
d) Heat pumps for climate control.


I have no idea how much energy that could save, but even JUST the solar hot water is huge.

I grew up with Solar hot water. It was one of the earliest residential systems and our house was actually featured in Family Handyman to showcase the installation.

During 3/4 of the year we didn't have to spend even one red cent on heating hot water. In the dead of winter we might have to raise the water temp 20 degrees or so.

That's HUGE.

The system paid for itself in just a couple of years, and was pure profit after that.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Yeah, we need to do that as well...

at the moment, we're not conserving OR generating 'cleanly' :(

[jpak]

20. How? By producing hydrogen for fuel cells or gas-fired turbines

or using stand-by biomass or hydroelectric plants.

Denmark way ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to wind power. They currently balance variations in wind power loads using hydroelectricity purchased from Norway.

Denmark also has hundreds of small municipal gas-fired co-generation plants - they plan to produce hydrogen from wind power (by electrolysis) during periods when wind power production exceeds demand and use it at these plants to balance variations in wind power loads.

Norway has a pilot program that uses wind power to produce hydrogen for fuel cells on the island of Utsira - the technology exists today and works.

Denmark is also planning the world's first hydrogen city...and plans to begin construction as early a next year.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Denmark are also world leaders...

...in pinching Norway's hydropower on calm days. Not an option for everyone.

Keeping the lights in 10 houses on an remarkably windy island is a little different to keeping the lights on in Oslo: Hydrogen fuel cells for grid power aren't a solution, they're a rather unfunny joke. I suspect, that we'll all be long dead before we see that on a useful scale, but I expect to have a good laugh at the planned hydropolis.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[JohnWxy]

22. Vanadium redox flow battery utility application installed in U.S. -

storage of excess power won't become an issue until wind power reaches 20% of total. That will be 10 yrs of so into the future. When storage does become an issue there are some interesting techniques being tried. ONe is vanadium redox flow storage devices. One system has been set up in the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=47193


HEre is an interesting site which covers a number of storage technologies (my thanks to DUer, 'skids'):

http://www.electricitystorage.org/technologies.htm


When we get a large number of wind farms on the plains from Montana and Minnesota to Texas I wonder if the 20% figure might be surpassed. Seems to me there is always wind blowing somewhere on the plains states.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. I'm not totally happy...

...about building an energy policy around something that's predicted in 10 years time. Seems a little too carefree to me...

[JohnWxy]

47. LEt's see does: "installed in 2003" mean anything to you?

You really should try reading. You might find informative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=47193

"One early application of flow battery technology in the United States was a project developed in a partnership between the large western utility, PacifiCorp, and VRB Power Systems, a Vancouver, British Columbia, developer of vanadium-based flow battery energy storage systems. The project, located in Castle Valley, Utah, involves a 250 kW installation with an eight-hour storage capacity. In energy terms, this is a 2 MWh system."

"Installed in 2003"

"Nearly two-dozen other flow battery systems are in place around the world, with tens of thousands of reliable charge-discharge cycles on record."


Actually, storage will not become an issue until Wind Power is producing 20% of the total demand. Even at the present very strong rate of growth that will probably take 10 yrs or perhaps longer to achieve.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. Does "TWh" mean anything to you?

6MWh is fuck all. 6GWh would make a slight difference: 6TWh is the sort of size needed. There's a lot of zeros between here and there.

[OhioNerd]

26. Don't forget the Flux Capacitor!

:D

[Dead_Parrot]

29. rofl... nt

[jpak]

23. The planned hydropolis will be populated by

attractive young women in halter tops and short-shorts.

check it out....

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4882.html

solar nirvana indeed....

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

24. lol. I hadn't noticed that... nt

[OhioNerd]

27. I think I'm in love... n/t

.

[hunter]

33. We were going to be nudists in our ecotopia.

We practiced quite often, but we couldn't get the rest of it to work.

[phantom power]

34. And it will only rain after sundown!

[Dead_Parrot]

39. Actually, it never rains...

Which is why she's out there with the hose. I suspect her friend may be on LSD, I've never seen anyone dancing with a lawnmower before...

...Yes, defiantly a big drug problem here. This guy sold all the furniture to buy the dose of crack he's just taken:

[phantom power]

40. Wait, this is the future, right? They're Stepford People!

The Global Mind has replaced everybody's brain with a less troublesome computer. Happy automata, running simple programs...

[Dead_Parrot]

41. So THATS what those silver things are...

I thought they were headphones, but they're really the WiFi uplinks implanted into their parietal lobes...

[jpak]

42. Hmmm... the attractive hydropolis ladies seem to be doing all the work...

:hide:

[Dead_Parrot]

43. It must be a very long way into the future, then.

:hide:

[hunter]

19. The Stability of the power grid is a BIG issue.

That 20% number in the original post is "hang on tight and hope we don't crash" kind of thing.

Currently fluctuations in wind power tend to get lost in the network noise. As the use of wind power increases this will not be the case. 20% can probably be handled by hydroelectric sources and quick acting (mostly natural gas) fossil fuel plants, but that's not an ideal solution. If the use of wind power increases rapidly it implies a significant amount of combined cycle natural gas generating capacity will have to be installed in tandem with new wind turbines to keep the network stable.

Thus wind power may turn out to be more expensive than back-of-the-envelope calculations account for. Another possibility would be to make the network "smarter" but this requires significant investments also.

I am very much opposed to using hydroelectric plants to balance out wind generation capacity because unnaturally fluctuating hourly stream flows are hell on riparian ecosystems. Natural gas isn't much better, since we will soon be importing very significant amounts of it, even though LNG terminals are as welcome in most places as nuclear power plants are.

Most of all, if we are bragging about wind having few environmental impacts, we really don't want to be backing it up with coal fired power plants of any sort, not even "clean" coal power plants. There is no such thing as "clean coal" no matter what you've heard.

[zeaper]

32. Fishie Numbers

The cost numbers for energy are suspect-if wind were really that much cheaper then why would anyone ever build anything else? Look around, folks are building wind farms but there are a lot of coal fired plants being planned and built.

From the March 2006 issue of Power Engineering (page 22): ”Wind Generation, while substantially less expensive than it was a decade ago, is still generally reported to cost in the range of 3 to 5 cents per KW for high-wind-speed (Class 6) sites and even more for low-wind speed (Class 4) sites—compared to 1.5 to 3 cents per KWh for new conventional fossil fuel plants.”

[JohnWxy]

35. 1.5 - 3 cents per kWhr for fossil fuel electricity? DEFINITETLY FISHY-LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x48326

"Austin Energy buys wind-generated electricity under 10-year, fixed-price contracts and passes this stable price on to its GreenChoice subscribers. This fixed-price energy product is quite attractive to Austin's 388 corporate GreenChoice customers, including Advanced Micro Devices, Dell, IBM, Samsung, and 3M. Advanced Micro Devices expects to save $4 million over the next decade through this arrangement. School districts are also signing up. Round Rock School District, for example, projects 10-year savings to local taxpayers at $2 million."


You see, the wind doesn't increase it's cost every year._JW


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x48498

"Members of the City Council's energy committee, along with Mayor Mark Johnston and City Administrator Rick Michaud, are planning a trip on April 17 to Hull, Mass., where two wind turbines save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in electricity costs."


www.nwclimate.org/Presentations/WindND2-Feb05.pdf

Wholesale cost of current coal electricity
very dirty, old plants    below    2¢ kWh
newer plants          about    3¢ kWh
newer, cleaner plants min.    4¢ kWh

Wholesale cost of new electricity estimated Feb 05

coal    min. 4¢ kWh
hydro    none
nuclear    unclear
North Dakota wind    2.5¢ kWh

[zeaper]

37. Who to Believe?

Hum, why would there be a difference in reported costs from a wind farm promoter versus Power Magazine? Personally I would think the Power Magazine less biased; after all they are selling power plant products not just wind power.

Either way, the market typically determines the future. I work in the power industry and as is the case with any industry money talks. If wind power really does cost less than coal power we will see wind farms being built and coal plants not being built.

[JohnWxy]

44. Found some more data on cost of coal per kWh (www.careenergy.com)

It wasn't easy to find this and it wasn't provided in a format that could be copied but I looked at the table which showed data for all states.

http://www.careenergy.com/powering_life/affordable.asp (click on: "View Data")

The table shows how much of the electricity in each state is generated by coal and the cost per kiloWatt-hr. I couldn't copy it, but picked up the 5 states with the highest percentage of electric power from coal (the balance being from very expensive Natural Gas, I assume). The data seem to point to a figure of between 4 and 5 cents per kWhr. NOw keep in mind the coal companies keep out the costs they consider 'external' like the cost impacts of coal through pollution - health care costs etc. These do cost us money in the end. Estimates of the impact of these costs vary quite a bit. These estimates put the true cost of coal, with pollution costs included, at an additional 1 to 3 cents per kWhr.


West Virginia 98.1% from coal cost per kWhr: 5.1 cents

NOrth Dakota 95.2% from coal, cost per kWhr: 5.5 cents

Indiana 95.1% from coal, cost per kWhr: 5.3 cents

Kentucky 95.2% from coal, cost per kWhr: 4.2 cents

New Mexico 84.5% from coal, cost per kWhr: 7.2 cents

[hunter]

45. Yes, money talks. Sometimes it talks stupid.

Coal is a perfectly horrible fuel. It destroys the environment and kills people. If global warming turns out to be as bad as many researchers are predicting it will be, millions of people will certainly die because we burn coal. Think about that as the next major city is drowning. New Orleans may only be the first of many.

Nuclear Power is much less dangerous than coal.

The quickest and least expensive power plants to build are fueled by natural gas. The construction of these plants will inevitably increase our imports of natural gas, and this will require the construction of LNG terminals along our coasts, and endless political concessions to other nations, some of which we despise.

When all these costs are considered wind power is almost certainly less expensive than coal or natural gas, but our myopic markets don't see the actual costs of things.

The first thing we we do if we were rational creatures would be to shut down coal fired power plants everywhere as quickly as we can. But we're not going to do that until our idiot leaders are wading through the streets of Washington D.C., and even then they will say the flooding is an Act of God, and probably claim not enough Americans were good Christians.

A lot of us are going to deserve this shitstorm. I feel sorry for the ones who don't.