Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46362)	10/12/2010 5:32:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Offshore wind in the region could generate about 127 gigawatts of power, enough to meet half current electric demand Demand isn't for gigawatts as much as its for gigawatt hours. Installed capacity that isn't actually producing much of the time isn't nearly as useful as the headline figures would seem to indicate. Even a relatively small percentage of the time when its not producing anywhere near capacity (which isn't the case of wind, although off shore wind might be a bit better), makes the source problematic as a major source, as long as the timing of the underproduction can not be known in advanced or changed (which it can't be for wind). Offshore wind might produce more often, OTOH its also going to be more expensive. On the general subject of wind power (more about onshore than offshore) -- High and Hidden Costs: There is Nothing Free about the Wind What was normally a peaceful, quiet way of life for residents of Vinalhaven, an island off the coast of Maine, suddenly became loud and unbearable when utilities operating three new wind turbines flipped the switch to “on.” A recent New York Times article reports that some Vinalhaven residents are learning “the hard way” that wind power has its costs. While residents welcomed the arrival of the turbines in late 2009, it is apparent that they did so with certain expectations. Those expectations came from what schoolteacher Sally Wylie call an understanding that the turbine noise would not be discernible. Though wind farms produce emissions-free energy (when the wind is blowing), they bring certain costs with them. One cost—the wearisome low-frequency noise emitted by enormous blades—is evident by these complaints from Maine and from other homeowners all over the country. Complaints filed in 2008 by a Pennsylvania couple and a Wisconsin family forced to vacate its farm are just two examples of the financial and physiological damages of the whooshing turbines. The deceit in this story runs deeper. According to the Times article: Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind—a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative—said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost. “The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said. So wind power turns out to be more expensive than proponents would argue. But isn’t wind already more expensive than our more conventional sources of electricity? Isn’t that why it supplied less than 2 percent of the nation’s electricity in 2009? In a word, yes. The Energy Information Administration’s lists the levelized costs of various sources of electricity per megawatt hour projected for 2016 (in 2008 dollars). In 2016, both onshore and offshore wind are more than double the cost of conventional coal, and these costs don’t account for the billions of dollars needed to build new transmission lines as well as the backup power necessary when the wind isn’t blowing. This notion that “because wind is free, once the manufacturer builds the windmill, the cost of electricity generation will be cheap” is completely false. One possible solution to the noise produced by windmills is to require developers to leave buffer zones between residents and the wind farms, which a piece of legislation in Vermont is proposing. But if wind is to help propel us toward the Obama Administration’s goal of doubling U.S. renewable energy generation by 2012 or having 20 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2020, then more wind farms will likely be constructed near homeowners. More noisy turbines mean more lawsuits filed about noise and potential decline in property value. Clearly not all “green” energy is good once it actually gets going. Higher costs, hidden costs, and the disruptive noise that accompany wind turbines indicate that wind enthusiasts are not telling the whole story. blog.heritage.org

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46362)	10/13/2010 2:56:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

bw 15 hours ago Back of the envelope: to get an IRR of 15% will require that they charge $30 per MWh to transmit the electricity. If this is going to be cost competitive with the going price for electricity ($100 per MWh in the mid-atlantic), that leaves $70 to pay the wind farm operator and any storage or backup power. Unfortunately offshore wind economics work out such that you would need to charge roughly $160 per MWh to generate a 15% IRR. Don't worry, all is well so long as we the people are willing to subsidize it to the tune of $2.4 billion per year (or willing to pay almost double for our electricity)... theatlantic.com