The Real Cost of Wind Energy (what some of us have suspected all along)

[rushmc 18]

From an Universty of Utah Study
and (just for you John)
A peer reviewed report at that!!

http://www.strata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-Report-True-Cost-of-Wind1.pdf

Quote

The cost of wind energy is significantly more expensive than its advocates pretend, a new US study has found.

Quote

Among the factors wind advocates fail to acknowledge, the report shows, is the “opportunity cost” of the massive subsidies which taxpayers are forced to provide in order to persuade producers to indulge in this otherwise grotesquely inefficient and largely pointless form of power generation.

In the US this amounts to an annual $5 billion per year in Production Tax Credits (PTC). Here is money that could have been spent on education, healthcare, defence or, indeed, which could have been left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend as they prefer.

Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. This phenomenon, known as “negative pricing”, is worthwhile to wind producers because they only get their subsidy credits when they are producing power (whether it is needed or not). But clearly not worthwhile to the people who end up footing the bill: ie taxpayers.

Hence the observation of serial wind energy “investor” Warren Buffett, who says: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

But even this report may underestimate the real costs of wind energy. It doesn’t account for the damage caused to the health of people unfortunate enough to live near wind turbines, as acknowledged officially for the first time in this report produced for the Australian government.

World wide waste of money it seems


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/study-wind-farms-even-more-expensive-and-pointless-than-you-thought/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Breitbart is peer reviewed? who would have guessed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

"Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. "

Right where I stopped.
A "study" is not worded that way unless there is another purpose.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Breitbart is peer reviewed? who would have guessed.

Actually?

No

But then, you have to dirvert now dont you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

normiss

"Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. "

Right where I stopped.
A "study" is not worded that way unless there is another purpose.

Look at the first link

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

And they make people sick

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Interim_Report

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Rick 67]

I especially liked this "bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes"

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 622]

Isn't that a normal research term?

[normiss 622]

Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney: "There have now been 17 reviews of the available evidence about wind farms and health, published internationally. These are reviews of all studies, not single pieces of research. Each of these reviews have concluded that wind turbines can annoy a minority of people in their vicinity, but that there is no strong evidence that they make people ill."

[billvon 2,400]

>Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet
>the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes

Exactly. Why have eco-crucifixes when Rush can have his baby-killing, wallet-filling, family-destroying industrial-scale slaughterhouses?

(might have missed an adjective or two there; lost count)

[Calvin19 0]

rushmc

From an Universty of Utah Study
and (just for you John)
A peer reviewed report at that!!

http://www.strata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-Report-True-Cost-of-Wind1.pdf

Quote

The cost of wind energy is significantly more expensive than its advocates pretend, a new US study has found.

***Among the factors wind advocates fail to acknowledge, the report shows, is the “opportunity cost” of the massive subsidies which taxpayers are forced to provide in order to persuade producers to indulge in this otherwise grotesquely inefficient and largely pointless form of power generation.

In the US this amounts to an annual $5 billion per year in Production Tax Credits (PTC). Here is money that could have been spent on education, healthcare, defence or, indeed, which could have been left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend as they prefer.

Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. This phenomenon, known as “negative pricing”, is worthwhile to wind producers because they only get their subsidy credits when they are producing power (whether it is needed or not). But clearly not worthwhile to the people who end up footing the bill: ie taxpayers.

Hence the observation of serial wind energy “investor” Warren Buffett, who says: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

But even this report may underestimate the real costs of wind energy. It doesn’t account for the damage caused to the health of people unfortunate enough to live near wind turbines, as acknowledged officially for the first time in this report produced for the Australian government.

World wide waste of money it seems


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/study-wind-farms-even-more-expensive-and-pointless-than-you-thought/

I may be completely off base here, but I was under the impression that alternative/renewable energy sources were already understood to be more expensive and difficult to realize and integrate. I was under the impression that despite large concern for environmental degradation fossil fuels were known to be currently powers less expensive to generate electricity with. As expected from the dramatic title the "costs" cited are all but purely monetary with less than a page out of 31 content pages mentioning negative human and environmental impacts.


[ad hominem] But really the best tell here is the person who posted it. It's always fun to see what you can dig up on the church side of the internet [/ad hominem]
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. That's my college self talking. I'm not that person anymore.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet
>the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes

Exactly. Why have eco-crucifixes when Rush can have his baby-killing, wallet-filling, family-destroying industrial-scale slaughterhouses?

(might have missed an adjective or two there; lost count)

argue against the first link. The rest is for you and John to enjoy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

It seems you really are that person

You brought it up

Now. How many posts already and not one addresses the linked study

Consistant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>argue against the first link.

I am replying to your post, actually.

(Unless you did not post that for discussion, and are just posting to annoy people.)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>argue against the first link.

I am replying to your post, actually.

(Unless you did not post that for discussion, and are just posting to annoy people.)

There are very very very few outlets that will even report on a study like this
Can you find it anywhere else?

As far as the annoyance factor? Well, that is your choice. But it is just taking alarmists tactics and turning it back on them
That really seems to tick em off as evidenced here don’t you think?

I provided the University of Utah study

Yet all that is gotten is posts like yours

Very consistent
Very consistent

So, now that this is out of the way

48% higher costs than the industry will say
What say you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Rick

I especially liked this "bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes"

Fun stuff !

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

> But it is just taking alarmists tactics and turning it back on them
>That really seems to tick em off as evidenced here don’t you think?

In that case - no trolling. Your one warning.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

> But it is just taking alarmists tactics and turning it back on them
>That really seems to tick em off as evidenced here don’t you think?

In that case - no trolling. Your one warning.

So you will not address the study?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

How little do you know about power generation turbines of varying types and their differences?

[rushmc 18]

From the report

Quote

By including the cost of government subsidies and other hidden costs of wind power, it is easy to
conclude that the true cost of wind energy is much higher than many studies estimate. Before the
enactment of more policies and mandates that bolster the no-longer-infant wind industry, the true
costs of wind power to American taxpayers should be calculated. This will ensure that future
policy decisions are based on comparisons of the actual costs and benefits of wind power.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

You like to speak about removing subsidies
And I have agreed

So, if you look at the graph on page 5 of the roport, would you still support that removal?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

DO you have a point?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

QED.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

QED.

And I get a warning for trolling!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>So you will not address the study?

Some data for you:

Levelized energy costs for Australia: (including subsidies) $ per MW-hr
(min-max)

Nuclear COTS 40–70
Nuclear specific to site 75–105
Coal 28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS 53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverized+CCS 64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine 101
Gas: combined cycle 37–54
Gas: combined cycle+CCS 53–93
Small Hydro power 55
Wind power: high capacity factor 63
Solar thermal 85
Biomass 88
Photovoltaics 120

Levelized energy costs for the UK: (including subsidies) $ per MW-hr
(min-max)

Natural gas turbine no CCS 55 – 110
Natural gas turbines CCS 60 – 130
Biomass 60 – 120
New nuclear 80 – 105
Onshore wind 80 – 110
Coal with CO2 capture 100 – 155
Solar farms 125 – 180
Offshore wind 150 – 210
Tidal power 155 – 390


Levelized energy costs for the US: (including subsidies) $ per MW-hr
Historical through 2015 (max-avg-min or max-min)

Wind, onshore 80-40
Wind, offshore 200-100
Solar PV 250-110-60
Solar CSP 220-100
Geothermal 100-50
Hydropower 100-70-30
Ocean 250-240-230
Biopower 110-90
Distributed Generation 130-70-10
Fuel Cell 160-100
Natural Gas Combined Cycle 80-50
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine 200-140
Coal, pulverized, scrubbed 150-60
Coal, integrated gasification, combined cycle 170-100
Nuclear 130-90

Levelized energy costs for the US: (including subsidies) $ per MW-hr
2020 projected (min-avg-max)
Conventional Coal 87.1-95.1-119
IGCC (Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle) 106.1-115.7-136.1
IGCC with CCS 132.9-144.4-160.4
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 70.4-75.2-85.5
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 68.6-72.6-81.7
NG: Advanced CC with CCS 93.3-100.2-110.8
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 107.3-141.5-156.4
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 94.6-113.5-126.8
Advanced Nuclear 91.8-95.2-101
Geothermal 43.8-47.8-52.1
Biomass 90-100.5-117.4
Wind onshore 65.6-73.6-81.6
Wind-Offshore 169.5-196.9-269.8
Solar PV 97.8-125.3-193.3
Solar Thermal 174.4-239.7-382.5
Hydro 69.3-83.5-107.2