Crimminy... you think this piece from an oil lobbyist from Texas proves your contention that even properly sited wind generation systems are 'more expensive' then other technologies?????
LOL!
Most of that opinion piece is either belaboring what is totally OBVIOUS (and that no one in their right mind disagrees with), or else referencing the subsidies that various smaller jurisdictions give to 'alternate energy technologies' (such as CA incentives) while totally failing to mention the much larger federal and state subsidies that go to traditional energy (nuclear, oil, coal, etc.)
See this section from the article: The cumulative taxpayer and ratepayer investment in the alternatives listed is substantial. The DOE has spent approximately $19 billion since its inception on electricity conservation ($8 billion-$9 billion) and nonhydro renewables ($10.7 billion), in 1996 dollars. [3]
Gee... '$8 to $9 Billion' in CONSERVATION COSTS ain't exactly a PRODUCTION SUBSIDY! (That's stuff like incentives to insulate old houses, your attic, etc.... and it's probably been more cost-effective then all the production subsidies rolled together). 'Conservation' doesn't care WHERE you buy your energy from....
But only '$10.9 Billion' subsidy to ALL 'non-hydro renewables'! Now, $11 Billion ain't chicken feed, but it doesn't look so impressive stacked up to the more then $50 Billion that's gone to just nuclear power (over a longer period of time)... and GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW MUCH in tax loss from the 'oil depletion allowance', and I'll bet a HELL OF A LOT MORE then $11 Billion in dam construction subsidies, etc., etc.
If one is going to 'count subsidies' (which this article doesn't really do), then you need to count 'em all.
Back to your contention that 'wind costs more' --- this article doesn't *really* say that!
In the first paragraph... it is referring to an AVERAGE COST of 'ALL' 'ALTERNATE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES' (I sure solar electric would bring the average costs WAY UP since, as I've already said it is the SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE technology in widespread use)... except for a 'throw-away line' at the end of that first paragraph that states that 'Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule'.
TOO BAD that that throw-away claim is TOTALLY UNSOURCED (no foot note, no statistics, no backing data at all).
One has to go WAY down deep into the article to find ANY KIND of supporting data for that claim and, HERE IT IS FROM THE FOOTNOTES:
[30]. Northwest Energy System, "Toward a Competitive Electric Power Industry for the 21st Century," Portland, Ore., December 12, 1996, p. 20. The new-capacity gas cost was 2.93 cents per kWh for 3,356 MW; the new-capacity wind cost was 4.1 cents per kWh for 117 MW and 4.94 cents per kWh for the next 116 MW. Conversation with Jeff King, Northwest Power Planning Council, March 6, 1997.
Gee --- around 3 cents for NATURAL GAS per kWh (& from way back in 1996, when natural gas was significantly CHEAPER then it is now... and, incidentially, also CHEAPER then coal, or oil, and WAY CHEAPER then nuclear) vs. about 4 to 5 cents per kWh for wind generation.
NINE YEARS LATER then that ONE STUDY (of only one producer in one state) what do you think the relative economics are NOW?
Have you seen the changes in gas/oil/coal just in the last year? You need to bring your thinking up to TODAY'S PRICES.
ALL THE COSTS FOR WIND shown in the article DATE FROM 1994 to 1996!!!!!!!! (Excluding a 1.5 cent federal subsidy... but that's only fair, because he's also excluding subsidy considerations from the cost calculus for all the MAINSTREAM production technologies TOO.)
The cost of wind power declined from around 25 cents per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to around 5-7 cents (constant dollars) in prime wind farm areas a decade later. [14] By the mid-1990s, wind advocates reported that a new generation of wind turbines had brought the cost down below 5 cents per kWh and even toward 4 cents per kWh in constant dollars. [15] A DOE estimate was 4.5 cents per kWh at ideal sites. [16]
Even with the numbers ABOVE --- from a DECADE AGO, and reported by an oil lobbyist --- you can see the steady and rapid decline in wind energy production costs. And, guess what?
Over the NEXT DECADE they CONTINUED to DECLINE, while costs for coal, oil, and natural gas have SOARED in the past two to three years. (And, nuclear and solar electric are STILL the most expensive of the major technologies!)
Links with newer data then the decade old info contained in your posted article below.
World Energy Stores and Costs (a two person debate)
physicsweb.org
World Energy Assessment:
undp.org
Apollo Alliance Energy Facts
apolloalliance.org
How the price of wind power stacks up against coal, gas and nuclear (PDF with data for all of 2003. At that point in time only natural gas was cheaper then wind energy. Since then, as I've mentioned, gas, oil, coal costs have soared):
windpower-monthly.com
Denmark
windpower.org |
