Cost of wind power compared to other power sources.

[JohnWxy]

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


Fuel             Levelized costs (cents/kWh) (1996)

Coal            4.8-5.5
Gas            3.9-4.4
Hydro            5.1-11.3
Biomass            5.8-11.6
Nuclear            11.1-14.5
Wind (without PTC)      4.0-6.0
Wind (with PTC)      3.3-5.3

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 ofnatural 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.


(if wind farms were financed with the favorable arrangements that utilities get when they finance coal or gas fired plants wind costs would drop about 30%. __JW)

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Wind is a young technology. Costs will come down.

The others are mature technologies & non-renewable resource-dependent. Costs will go up.

[NNadir]

2. Of course we could refer to EIA data, but that would involve reality.

If you don't know what you're talking about make stuff up.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. What, you mean the Wind Energy Association might not be totally unbiased!?

Surely not...

[NNadir]

4. Imagine if I put up a link from the World Nuclear Association.

The corn lobby would go wild.

Here's the main difference between what the World Nuclear Association would put on their website and what the wind association puts on <em>theirs</em>. The world nuclear association's data would be true and would refer to say, the EIA data.

Of course, no one would object to the wind industry displacing natural gas, except of course they would have to <em>keep</em> the gas plants in tip top shape just in case the wind stopped blowing.

This is not a theoretical matter but a practical matter. During California's 2006 "heat storm" the fucking wind plants were operating at 5% of capacity. They were useless.

So what happened in California during the mid-July heat storm when that electric grid was put to the test, and California avoided rolling blackouts amid a Level 1 Emergency in which Californian’s were asked to raise their thermostats to 77 and many manufactures and business voluntarily shutdown? By most people’s analysis, wind’s performance was disappointing. Specifically during this period of peak demand, statewide wind often operated at only 5% of capacity, or less. The specific data is plotted in the attached graph. The upper line shows the peak daily electric demand as recorded by the California Independent System Operator, CASIO, during the heat storm. Daily peak power usage increased fairly steadily in mid July, reaching its peak on July 24 at 50,270 MW. Wind’s availability during this same period is presented in the lower line. Specifically this is the percent of the CASIO available wind capacity, 2,500MW, which was actually putting electricity into the CASIO grid at the time of peak demand on each day plotted.

By most measures these numbers are disappointing. On the day of peak demand, August 24, 2006, wind power produced at 254.6 MW at the time of peak demand. 254.6 MW represents only 10.2% of wind’s rated capacity of 2,500MW. Another perspective on the data, over the preceding seven days, August 17 to 23, wind produced at 89.4 to 113.0 MW, averaging only 99.1 MW at the time of peak demand or just 4% of rated capacity.

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1332

So what did the wind pioneer state of California - the state with 2,500 mega"watts" of wind power do?

They burned fucking natural gas in their natural gas plants. Fortunately those plants had not been dismantled because of the wonders of renewable energy. No fucking ethanol tankers came into Los Angeles Harbor that week to run electrical plants either.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Well, now you're just being a naysayer

I don't care about your inconvenient truths, Amory Lovins says wind is great and I think he is God. He must be, because he's proved it's possible live off-grid by spending only a million dollars per house.

Sorry, I seem to be channeling Jpak. BTW, I want to say thanks for your DKos diaries (here for anyone who hasn't seen them): It's nice to see a grumpy old fart ranting about life and energy (no really, it is: I'm one myself, but don't have your turn phrase).

[XemaSab]

6. Wind is an odd and fickle energy source

It can help the grid sometimes, but not reliably. It's also hard on the transmission lines to have "spiky" energy running through.

:shrug:

[JohnWxy]

9. my bad. I assumed people might go to the link and read a bit there. The data was gathered by

the California Energy commission in 1996. to quote from the document cited:

"The following table compares the costs of major energy sources
with wind energy. The figures are from the California Energy Commission’s 1996
Energy Technology Status Report <2>, which examined the costs and market readiness
of various energy options."


http://departments.oxy.edu/physics/CSP6/CSP6_Handouts/WindCost_NREL.pdf


In the seventies, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program set a
goal to help industry reduce the cost of energy
from wind to the point where it can begin to
compete with conventional sources of
electricity. With the levelized cost of energy
from wind today at less than $0.05 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), the DOE-wind industry
partnership is beginning to achieve this goal.
As new technology currently being developed
is introduced into the market, costs will
decrease even further.

Industry Leadership

The U.S. wind industry has achieved this cost
reduction through real-world application
experience, technology improvements, mass
production of components, and establishment of
utility-grade operation and maintenance
(O&M) programs in the field. Capital costs for
wind turbines have fallen dramatically, from over
$3000 per kilowatt (kW) 20 years ago to less
than $1000 per kW today.

At the same time, the productivity and reliability
of the turbines have increased dramatically.
Modern wind turbines achieve aerodynamic
efficiencies as high as 75%. Furthermore, the
average power output per unit area swept by the
rotor (kW/m2) has increased from 600 kW/m2
20 years ago to over 1000 kW/m2 today.

~~
~~

Looking to the future,DOE is helping to
develop the next generation of wind turbines.
This initiative is slated to cost $50 million, of
which 30% of the cost will be paid for by private
industry.With technical support from the DOE
laboratories, engineers from industry are
designing, building, and testing new turbines
from the ground up, incorporating many years of
R&D lessons learned. These next-generation
turbines should be capable of producing
electricity at $0.025 per kWh at excellent wind
sites by early in the next decade, achieving a new
cost milestone for wind technology.

[razzleberry]

7. fuel cost for coal, about a penny per KWH

Food for thought.

In the US, for half of electricity needs,
20 pounds of coal per capita per day,
costs, 20 to 30 cents total per day.
(one pound/coal per one KWH/electricity)

...........................
Denmark is different.
Denmark features --> FREE <-- wind energy.

buy all the =====> FREE <===== wind-helped electricity
you want for only 29 cents per KWH, the worlds highest price.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html

[Nihil]

8. More food for thought ...

Care to take a wild guess at which one of the two (US or Denmark) has
their mind most focussed on reducing waste?

... wonder how the total costs balance out (i.e., 10x per-unit cost
versus ???x units consumed per capita) ...
:think:

[JohnWxy]

10. COAL 7.62 cents per KWHr - U.S. Energry Information Administrtation

http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/electricity/average_cost.htm


U. S. Average Revenue per KWh is 7.62 cents

Source: U.S. DOE - Energy Information Administration, Electric Sales and Revenue, 2004.

[JohnWxy]

11. wind power provides about 20% of the total power demand in Denmark.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203293,00.html

Twenty percent of Denmark's energy needs are now met by electricity generated by wind turbines, and the proportion is steadily increasing. Thanks to advances in technology and turbine design, the cost of wind power has been reduced by 75 percent since 1970, when the programs began.

[NNadir]

12. So what are the plans to make it 100%?

This vast success must have inspired Denmark to eliminate fossil fuels, no?

Denmark has been using wind power for more than a decade. Surely their wind building program must be increasing rapidly, no?

When do "renewables will save us" advocates predict the end of fossil fuels? Ever?

What <em>large</em> country has a wind power production level of more than 5%? Any?

[JohnWxy]

13. addendum: Denmark plans to boost wind power to 50% of their supply by 2025.

The original point of this thread was the cost of wind power compared to other sources. IT has been shown that wind power is the cheapest source of power today and that it will only become cheaper (as more wind turbines are built).


Now, with specific regard to Denmark's future plans for wind power, others can find this out on the web as easily as I can, but here is a place to start: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46749

Denmark to Increase Wind Power to 50% by 2025, Mostly Offshore


Findings released from eight-year study on offshore wind farms in Denmark show projects "operate in harmony with the surrounding environment."

Denmark, home to Horns Rev and Nysted offshore wind farms, has completed an eight-year study -- and consequent 144-page report -- conducted by Danish energy and environment government agencies on the impacts of Horns Rev and Nysted on the aquatic ecosystem including birds, fish, seals and life found on the seabed. The findings were released last week at the Final Results: The Danish Monitoring Programme conference held in Denmark. The report confirms that both the Horns Rev and Nysted offshore wind farms will be doubled in size in the coming years. Prepared by the Danish Energy Authority, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Dong Energy and Vattenfall (the companies that own the two offshore wind farms), the report also contains commentary from the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology, which gave the report a positive evaluation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As most people realize replacing fossil fuels entirely, with renewables will not happen in a couple of years. It will take decades. But getting to say 50% reduction of the use of fossil fuels is a good intermediate goal. One which will greatly improve the GHG situation worldwide. As we move closer to 100% replacement we will be reducing the contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere due to combustion of CO2, which is a good thing. Current wind power potential estimates will be going up as more efficient designs of wind turbines are brought into service. We are quite a ways however, from celebrating total replacement of fossil fuels for electrical power but in the mean time much can be done to improve the GHG situation and this should be pursued with as much diligence as possible.

As I said, this information is available on the web. No special talent is required to get a little informed on the subject.

But once again the main point of the thread is that wind power is the cheapest source of electrical power today and it will only become cheaper (while at the same time fossil fuels will become more dear).

regarding wind power potential, Stanford researchers have shown wind power potential to be several times the worlds total energy demand:

http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67600,00.html



Map Reveals Airstream Potential


By Amit Asaravala| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM May, 23, 2005

Wind power could generate enough electricity to support the world's energy needs several times over, according to a new map of global wind speeds that scientists say is the first of its kind.

The map, compiled by researchers at Stanford University, shows wind speeds at more than 8,000 sites around the world. The researchers found that at least 13 percent of those sites experience winds fast enough to power a modern wind turbine. If turbines were set up in all these regions, they would generate 72 terawatts of electricity, according to the researchers. That's more than five times the world's energy needs, which was roughly 14 terawatts in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The researchers readily admit that existing buildings, land rights and other obstacles would make it impossible to set up turbines in every single one of the identified regions. But they point out that even 20 percent of those sites could satisfy world energy consumption as it stands today.

[jpak]

15. Denmark is also investing in large biomass CHP plants

like the the 475 MW(e) 570 MW(t) plant near Copenhagen, but (unike neighboring Germany) has yet to provide incentives for PV.

Once that happens, Denmark will achieve solar nirvana...

:evilgrin:

[JohnWxy]

16. "solar nirvana", .. (chuckle) ... I like it! you do know how to turn a phrase.

Yes. Solar has huge potential too. (warms my heart!). Thanks for the added info.

[gravity]

14. If wind is cheaper then no need to worry

power companies will invest in wind instead of other fuel sources.

[JohnWxy]

17. Right now the biggest limitation is the wind generator manufacturer's production

capacities. They are struggling to add capacity to reduce the considerable backlog of orders for wind turbines.