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

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>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

Please provide the data's source
Also
It does not appear that this levilization takes into account the spinning reserves required when wind is used

"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]

The fact that you missed that speaks volumes.
It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

[billvon 2,396]

>It does not appear that this levilization takes into account the spinning reserves
>required when wind is used

Correct. And the coal numbers do not take into account the costs of healthcare for the people injured and killed by coal power plant pollution, or the costs to buildings and bridges damaged by acid rain. These are simply direct costs - how much you have to pay for that power over the life of the source.

>Please provide the data's source

Australia: http://csiro0702.interactiveinvestor.com.au/
UK: http://www.iesisenergy.org/lcost/
US forecast: http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/
US historical: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

[billvon 2,396]

>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?

Sure. Remove all subsidies, period. Require everyone to meet the same emissions standards, period. Then let the market decide.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

The fact that you missed that speaks volumes.
It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

10 out of 10

"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]

billvon

>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?

Sure. Remove all subsidies, period. Require everyone to meet the same emissions standards, period. Then let the market decide.

If done
wind would grow very little at best

"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 2,396]

>If done, wind would grow very little at best

That's fine. A slow changeover to cleaner sources of power gets us there in the long run.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>If done, wind would grow very little at best

That's fine. A slow changeover to cleaner sources of power gets us there in the long run.

NOTE:
"There" is where you think we need to be
Air quality has been getting better for decades
Now CO2 is the evil product

Gotta admit, it is a good plan as CO2 will always be there

Even if the agenda pushing the change is a lie, which it is, it is still a good plan

"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 2,396]

>Air quality has been getting better for decades

Yes, it has. As emission limits have improved, and as cleaner sources of energy has replaced coal, air quality has improved. I see no reason to stop this trend.

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***>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



ACTUALLY you provided a link to the university study but, misleadingly as always, your quotes were taken from the Breitbart right wing spin machine.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***>If done, wind would grow very little at best

That's fine. A slow changeover to cleaner sources of power gets us there in the long run.

NOTE:
"There" is where you think we need to be
Air quality has been getting better for decades


Indeed, the Clean Air Act was passed decades ago. Nixon signed it. Prior to government intervention air quality had been declining for decades.

...

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

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******>If done, wind would grow very little at best

That's fine. A slow changeover to cleaner sources of power gets us there in the long run.

NOTE:
"There" is where you think we need to be
Air quality has been getting better for decades


Indeed, the Clean Air Act was passed decades ago. Nixon signed it. Prior to government intervention air quality had been declining for decades.

yes, and china is the worst.

Make ALL countries meet us air quality standards!
Right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,396]

>Make ALL countries meet us air quality standards! Right?

Sure. And while China has a way to go, they are at least headed in the right direction.

[Calvin19 0]

rushmc

... and not one addresses the linked study

I read it, and I did address it. Read my post again. The article talks about the " 'true' cost of wind energy." It reads like something between a freshman research project and a click-bait advertisement. I agree that the paper may be fairly accurate on it's main point, but it is a red herring.

As I put in my last post, the subject of the paper was redundant and is well understood by 'most' people who look into it at all.

My counter argument, for the second time, is that the paper is written as if the motivation for renewable energy is a short-term financial investment when it is in reality understood by proponents to be a long term environmental AND financially beneficial course of action, despite increase in energy cost. This is not a new concept, neither is the point made in the paper.

[rushmc 18]

IMO there will be no long term benifit. Enviornmentaly or financially
This is just another direction for a few to try and force peole to live how they think they should live

The gloom and doom stories have been around since the 70's and they will continue even if everything these people want was relized. They would/sill just find something else to go after

So, to your point. Maybe that is what they believe

I think they are just foolong themselves

And , if this trully is the motivation, what does the industry of wind regularly lie about the true cost?

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

[Amazon 7]

kallend

Breitbart is peer reviewed? who would have guessed.

Deja Moo:


The feeling that you've heard this bull before.

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

IMO there will be no long term benifit. Enviornmentaly or financially
This is just another direction for a few to try and force peole to live how they think they should live

What are your credentials for making such an assessment of a highly technical issue?

...

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

[normiss 622]

Expecting the same answer I received.....

[wmw999 2,121]

The sponsoring organization (strata) encourages liberty-based study. I'm not sure what liberty and science have to do with each other.

Everything costs more than it seems on the surface. Trash disposal, coal power, hydroelectric power, drug manufacture, everything that's not part of a single family off-the-grid standalone subsistence existence.

But we're used to the costs of established technologies, so we tend to ignore them until they bite us (eg the need to find a new dump site for trash).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Trash disposal is not agenda driven

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

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

Trash disposal is not agenda driven

Really?

You believe that?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***Trash disposal is not agenda driven

Really?

You believe that?

Yeah.. I guess he has never seen the chaos when the trash is not collected for a couple weeks.

Just watch how fast citizens are ready to lynch their local politicians..... now that is an agenda.... spanning all party affiliations.

[normiss 622]

Reminds me of one of my first trips to NYC, during a trash collector's strike.
Pewie.

[Amazon 7]

normiss

Reminds me of one of my first trips to NYC, during a trash collector's strike.
Pewie.

Marc will be along in a moment to vilify unions now

I am sure there are quips found in his newsletters about those as well as the Evil EPA that attack those oft maligned billionaires

[normiss 622]

I think I have just identified why I hate NY pizza.

No wonder it tastes like shit to me!!!