Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Posted 11:15 AM Post Link
Links to this post
I disagree with number 4: they aren't really that noisy. Not much different from a fan, really.
They account for 20% of Electricity Production in Iowa, and S. Dakota, and produced 8.5% of the Electricity in Texas last year.I saw some numbers from Kansas, yesterday (if I can find the article I'll post it) that show the Turbines, there, are operating at about 40% efficiency.Now, the system will become even more efficient when they start adding Solar into the grid to cover the Summer afternoon "peak" periods.It's silly to keep railing against something that is clearly going to be a big part of the future.
jon-you ever been near a farm of windmills with 40 meter blades?they are noisy and it's a low frequency noise that really carries and penetrates.you can hit 45db quite easily and it's a really low hertz throbbing sound. i sure would not want to sleep near it.http://www.acousticecology.org/wind/bottom of page 5.45 db is normal conversation level.that is a lot of noise to have in your home.
rufus-wind can never be a real prat of the future. it's non economic, unreliable, and that is not going to change.wind power over sweep is a 3rd power equation.thus, 10mw at 20mph becomes 2.5mw at 15 and is barely worth running at 10.that's why wind farms generate 15% of faceplate power.worse, because they are unpredictable and inconsistent, they ALWAYS need some other power plant running to take up the slack when they drop off. they cannot replace ANY existing stations as a result.wind is NEVER going to be real for baseline power. PS.those iowa numbers are total nonsense."As of January 2011, IUB staff estimates that 19-20% of all electricity generated in Iowa now comes from wind. This output is generated in Iowa but may be consumed outside of the state. This reflects the expected annual performance of all wind generation installed in Iowa to date, not historic performance. The estimate is based on the following assumptions: Currently installed wind capacity of 3,675 MW in Iowa, per AWEA's web site; Iowa average wind capacity factor of 33.3%, per industry consultant Tom Wind; and current U.S. DOE-EIA figures for electricity generated in Iowa (from all/other sources)."they are an estimate based on bad numbers. 33%? not a chance in hell. no one even hits 20%. they will be lucky to do half of what they claim.http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/energy/wind_generation.html
Okay, Morgan, U.S. DOE, EIA, and AWEA are "all" wrong. gimmee a break.
"Based on a four-model study of electricity used in some 130 countries in the past 50 years, York found that it took more than 10 units of electricity produced from non-fossil sources – nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, wind, biomass and solar – to displace a single unit of fossil fuel-generated electricity."When you see growth in nuclear power, for example, it doesn't seem to affect the rate of growth of fossil fuel-generated power very much," said York, a professor in the sociology department and environmental studies program. He also presented two models on total energy use. "When we looked at total energy consumption, we found a little more displacement, but still, at best, it took four to five units of non-fossil fuel energy to displace one unit produced with fossil fuel.""I'm not saying that, in principle, we can't have displacement with these new technologies, but it is interesting that so far it has not happened," York said. "One reason the results seem surprising is that we, as societies, tend to see demand as an exogenous thing that generates supply, but supply also generates demand. Generating electricity creates the potential to use that energy, so creating new energy technologies often leads to yet more energy consumption.""
you ever been near a farm of windmills with 40 meter blades?Admittedly, I have not been near a windfarm. Growing up, Mass Maritime Academy had a windmill on their property. I lived right across the Canal from them and it never bothered us.Again, granted, that is one windmill.
wind is NEVER going to be real for baseline power. And sails are never coming back to ships, for full power.But, if an autmatically launched kite can save a ship $1800 a day in fuel cost, then it may still be a useful partial answer.
The wind turbine at Mass maritime is a subscale demonstration unit.
rufus-read the comment.they assume 33% per an industry consultant.unlike you, i have a great deal of real world experience with wind farms from companies that make the parts and mine the metals all the way up to the operators (mostly as shorts and very successfully. i make a living betting against clown like these.).NO ONE gets 33%. 15-17% is typical.the number you cite is the output of a model using bad assumptions.if it's really so good, why do they NEVER include historical data? surely they have data from 2010 and 2011. why is that info still output from a model? because the reality is much worse and would not work yo justify all the additional money they want.iowa itself tells you so on their website.the third power wind velocity equation is what is called HARD SCIENCE. go can't model gravity on earth's surface at 4.5m/s2 and get meaningful answers.your appeal to authority is just a weak and lazy argument. if you had an even rudimentary understanding of wind farms, you'd know that 33% faceplate yield is an unrealistic assumption.even holland, with it's long history of windmills and excellent siting gets only .186 yield from its wind farms, many of which are offshore, which tend to get better yield. germany gets .167.i suggest you get some info before relying so blindly on "authorities" that have told you up front that they are not giving you real data."This reflects the expected annual performance of all wind generation installed in Iowa to date, not historic performance. The estimate is based on the following assumptions:"when someone refuses to give you historical data and wants you to rely on a model instead, do you really want to trust them? ask yourself: is that the action of someone interesting in conveying truth or of selling you a line?the industry loves to talk about "wind generation capacity" but leaves out that pesky fact that real output is 80-85% lower.
hydra-"And sails are never coming back to ships, for full power.But, if an autmatically launched kite can save a ship $1800 a day in fuel cost, then it may still be a useful partial answer."first off, they never left. lots of people have sailboats.second, it's not a good analouge.a kite is cheap and pays for itself in very short order.a windmill is not.a windmill costs $2.5 million per MW of faceplate.so, at 16% efficiency, you get 160kw x 24 hrs X 365 days = 1400 MWH a year.that sells wholesale for $30 X 1400 = $42,000.42,000/2500000 = 1.68% that's 60 year payback assuming ZERO maintenance and line loss.that's a money waster, not a good partial contributor.
regarding mass maritime, that's a 660 kw vestas turbine.big commercial scale windmills are 5-10MW, 10-20 times more powerful.the balde tips at 22 rpm move at over 90m/s. that's 185 mph.believe me, that makes some serious noise.
believe me, that makes some serious noise.Then I do stand corrected.
Noise isn't an issue. Masses of wind turbines aren't going to be anywhere near people. Kansas, Iowa, S.Dakota and the likes aren't exactly populated. I have stood in the middle of a wind farm, and the noise they generate wasn't louder than the cars driving by on the highway next to it. These things make sense only in very specific circumstances, in very specific areas, and under specific conditions. For most places, they make no sense. The problem is that those places and circumstances are typically where people don't live. 20% of installed capacity (which translates to far less in actual production) in S.Dakota...means very little. Even if we were to assume that all the concerns over GHG etc were valid, these things still make little sense outside of those specific circumstances, certainly not when the entire grid and their integration into the grid is considered. Environmental activist should not be pushing for such solutions if they were really concerned about GHG emissions, since the argument can be made that gas power-plants produce considerably less GHG emissions than coal, are much more flexible than both coal or wind, and are more scalable than wind. if you can be flexible, you can adjust your production to when you need it, and scale it back when you don't. Wind isn't adjustable...and when one takes into consideration the real GHG emissions of building and operating, you're probably not getting any savings (I think studies have been done that show just this).Form an economic perspective, they make no sense (as others have commented here). One operator of a wind turbine I have talked to a manufacturing business which bought a single turbine for their plant, and they said they were expecting a payback in about 14 years. And they were located on the shores of a very windy great lake. Not exactly the best use for your money.
Morgan, this Data (not estimates) from Kansas says You Don't Know What You're Talking About.Electricity "Production" in the High 30's/Low 40's.And, almost all of the turbines installed in the last few years have been in the 2MW range, Not 5-10MW.And, the cost is running about $2.00/MW, not $2.50/MW.
And, when the State of Texas says they got 8.5% of their electricity from Wind in 2011, do you really think they're using "estimates?"
Also, you have to take "historical" data with a grain of salt. The older windmills were smaller, and much less efficient.
Lots of people have sailboats, but not too many people make money under sail power alone. There is at least back up power, and morelikely there is full power with sail assist.The kite I mentioned is a very large peice of canvas. It is launched from a tower on the boat and it is computer controlled to fly in a figure eight pattern to maximize thrust.It is nowhere near as heavy and complex as a wind turbine, and I agree the analogy is not perfect.But just because they can never pull the full load doesn't (by itself) mean they cannot contribute.From long experience I can tell you that even sailboats suffer from similar issues. If I can keep the cost of operating mine at under $2 a mile, I'm doing pretty good.A set of sails for my little thirty footer is probably $15,000 today, and that would be modest sails, not high tech racing sails. You can buy a lot of fuel for that kind of money, and you still have to buy a mast and all the rigging to operate the sails.And pay for the back-up engine.I understand your point, and sailboats will never replace power boats any more than wind turbines will replace fossil fuels plants. but augmentation and replacement are two differnt things.
There have also been ships built with wind turbines on them that power conventional propellers, such that they can propel themselves straight into the wind that is moving them.
Rufus makes a number of excellent points.Somewhere out there, there does exist an objective truth. starting the search for it with an established dogmati position, (either pro or con), does not help converge on that truth any sooner.If it develops over time that Rufus truths are more accurate than morganovich truths then their positions will begin to converge.I just don't see much progress being made by starting from the position that says it will never work, can never work.
"But just because they can never pull the full load doesn't (by itself) mean they cannot contribute."i understand what you are saying, but i think wind cannot even contribute.at sub 2% annual ROI even before maintenance and line loss, you are looking at a net loss over useful life for sure.spending $100 to create $30 in npv's electricity over useful life is not a contribution.it's not a kite, it's an anchor.a kite pays for itself quickly.even at $180k, you are looking at 4 month payback if you use it every day. that's far better than 60 years which exceeds a turbine's useful life.
Here is a Texas Wind Farm with 278 MW max capacity that puts out over 750,000 MW hrs/yr. That's over 30% Efficiency.King Mountain Wind Farm
And, that is an older farm with smaller, 1.3 MW Turbines.I'm sure of one thing. I know within a few dollars what the electricity from one of those wind farms will cost in the year, 2033.Can anyone say the same about any fossil fuel-generated electricity?
I say "within a few dollars" because, although the Wind will continue to be "no charge," a maintenance worker will be required for approx. every six, or seven turbines. The salary of that maintenance worker can only be predicted within certain parameters.
Also, it's not a slam dunk that the worker/turbine ratio won't decline as the technology improves, and matures.
Here is a Texas Wind Farm with 278 MW max capacity that puts out over 750,000 MW hrs/yr. That's over 30% Efficiency.Question:This particular wind farm, at peak, has 30% efficiency.Gas plants, at peak, have about 50% efficiency. Coal and oil plants about 35-40%.Why is wind a viable alternative if it produces less efficiently?
This is from one of the Iowa Wind Farms:For example: Iowa Lakes Electric Cooperative's 14 wind turbines have a nameplate capacity of 1.5 megawatts (MW). Hypothetically, if all 14 turbines operated non-stop for the entire month the energy produced for the month would be: (14 turbines x 1.5 MW) x (31 days x 24 hours) = 15,624,000 kWh. The actual energy produced for the month of January was 8,848,141 kWh (8,848,141/15,624,000 kWh = 57 percent capacity factor).
Iowa Lakes Electric Cooperative
Jon, "efficiency" is, mostly, a red herring. What matters is "Cost/Output."And, with "Cost," you're looking not just at Today, but at a point fifteen, twenty, maybe thirty years down the road.
Jon, "efficiency" is, mostly, a red herring.Maybe, but it has been brought it up by both Morganovich and yourself. I think the question still stands.Secondly, I'd like to challenge your point about knowing the costs of wind going into the future. I'll agree that, given current circumstances, we can make a prediction about costs going forward, but it's impossible to "know" the future. What if the government passes a law regulating the amount of noise the turbine can make? Or it's profile in the sky? Or the types of metal used in them? Will not that change the costs? Could raise or lower them. Who knows?One other concern I have regarding wind power is the amount of land needed to effectively generate electricity. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that all else is held equal between wind and fossil-fuel plants: they operate at the same efficiency, no impediments to getting the power where it needs to go, etc. In order for a wind farm to generate the same amount of electricity as a power plant, it needs to occupy more ground (doesn't matter if it's on dry land or the ocean). That means less land for farming, fishing, building, natural parks, ocean life, etc. Is that a problem? I'm asking, not preaching.
Ah, Jon, a wind turbine takes up 1,600 sq ft (40 X 40) on average. By contrast, there are 43,560 sq ft in an acre. You're talking about 1/27th of an acre for 5,256 MW Hrs/annually. (figuring a .30 Conversion Factor)Or, 141,912 Megawatt/Hrs annually for an acre.Not much of a deal, I think.
Ah, Jon, a wind turbine takes up 1,600 sq ft (40 X 40) on average. Right, but don't you need many wind turbines to generate enough electricity for a community? Doesn't a power plant generate more power per unit of land than a wind turbine?I am asking. Energy is not my specialty
Maybe "red herring" isn't the, exactly correct term, but I only addressed it because Morgan was spreading some very bad info.
Yeah, Jon, I suppose that would be correct, but in any energy generation calculation that I'm aware of "the cost of land" is, basically, an afterthought.
Ok, thank you. I think I am done with my questions for now
As long as you don't come back insisting on "correct" answers we'll be fine. :)
*Imitating Columbo*Oh, just one more thing.Why is efficiency, for lack of a better word, a red herring?
Wind and solar subsidies are stupid. Still, the solar and wind guys are pikers next to the corn growers and mandated use of ethanol.The solar and wind guys should have said they are harvesting sunlight and wind in rural areas, and gotten under the USDA wing, where subsidies are permanent. The solar and wind guys had bad business models of one-off subsidies. What a bunch of rank amateurs. Idiots!Look at ethanol for a green program that became so deeply embedded into our economy and created so many dependent voters, that we will never eradicate it.Ethanol is another permanent federal pillar in the Red State Socialist Empire of knock-kneed, enfeebled, subsidized pink rural economies, propped by federal mandates or subsidies. The stupid solar and wind guys should have enmeshed themselves into the permanent federal rural lard-train. Being progressive liberal types, they obviously didn't know the ropes. What a bunch of weenies.
No One buys "efficiency," Jon. We buy electricity. We don't care if the electricity comes from a super-duper, highly efficient windmill, or a horse turning a crank; we just want to know "What does it cost me?"If I'm going into the electrical generation business, I'm not interested in duelling salemen hyping their "unique," patented, special sauces; I want to know:what will the plant cost (capital cost/labor/feedstock/etchow much will it produceand, for "how much" can I sell the product?
Thank you, Rufus.As an economist, I get caught up in efficiency. It's what we do: how can we allocate these resources in order to maximize their usefulness?
Benji,"Still, the solar and wind guys are pikers next to the corn growers and mandated use of ethanol."And your boyfriend is a huge advocate for solar, wind, AND ethanol.
BTW, Benji, Ethanol is Not subsidized, and is selling, today, on the CBOT for $2.28/gal (compared to $3.34 for gasoline.)
The ethanol subsides expired at the beginning of the year, I believe.
I understand, Jon. "Economics" has problems with two things:anything of "finite" supply (such as coal, oil, gas, etc,) and Time.
I understand, Jon. "Economics" has problems with two things:anything of "finite" supply (such as coal, oil, gas, etc,) and Time.Lol well, I'll have to disagree with you on that, but that is a discussion for another place and another time.
"They account for 20% of Electricity Production in Iowa, and S. Dakota, and produced 8.5% of the Electricity in Texas last year"...You have something credible to back up those numbers rufus?"Okay, Morgan, U.S. DOE, EIA, and AWEA are "all" wrong. gimmee a break"...That's right rufus, those parasitic bureaucrats aren't pushing Obama hates fossil fuels agenda, right?
Ethanol use is mandated at about 10 percent o gasoline nationally. The lobbyists want it to go to 15 percent. Ethanol was subsidized for many decades, and may be again, but right now use is "only" mandated by federal bureaucrats. What if Obama mandated to use of fuels in automobiles--at 10 percent of volume---that were derived from urban wastes, and produced in factories where inner-city types were employed.Oh, the outrage, the outrage. But the GOP drinks ethanol. Yeah, we all believe in free enterprise, except when we don't.
Let's see--Rick Santorum thinks the federal government should mandate--force you--to buy ethanol. Everytime you fill up your car, the feds should make sure there is ethanol in the gasoline.Here is Rick speaking--"Across Pennsylvania, farmers are also digging and planting corn and other crops that will be turned into ethanol that can replace gasoline in our cars. Most cars in America can’t run on ethanol, however, so who is going to install ethanol pumps at the gas station without the cars to run on it? At this point I would say to all of my hard-core conservative friends: Hold on to your hats.What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be “flex-fuel vehicles” – that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil."Gee, no right-wing ridicule of Santorum and his mandates for ethanol or methanol. Gee why not? Next we will hearing the evangelicals bashing money-lending and quoting Jesus to the effect that a rich man can get into heaven the way a camel can get through the eye of the needle. Is this really stuff we want to teach to children?
That's not a "wind energy fact sheet". It's a "wind energy hyperbole sheet".
The sad fact is that wind generated energy is another stupid leftist/socialist idea and a taxpayer supported scam...We could learn the lessons from Europe though: here and here...
Re: RufusWhat this 30 second video of a turbine killing a bird and tell me how wonderful wind power is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGUAnd then your comment about economics:"Economics" has problems with two things: anything of "finite" supply (such as coal, oil, gas, etc,) and Time.You strike me as a person who has no knowledge of economics.
If I show you a video of a car crash are you going to insist I walk to work?
I have "enough knowledge of economic" to not let it override my "common sense" (something that can't always be said for some of those who call themselves "economists.")
Come on rufus, I asked for 'credible' and you link to a progranda sheet...Interestingly but not suprisingly there's no mention I could find regarding toxicity of the rare earth elements used in power generating windmills...Mind you rufus I would love to see that there is some useful need for windmill generated juice but the technology isn't there yet otherwise real companies would be producing them without the need for taxpayer subsidies...
"That's not a "wind energy fact sheet". It's a "wind energy hyperbole sheet""...Not really...
Rufus: "I saw some numbers from Kansas, yesterday (if I can find the article I'll post it) that show the Turbines, there, are operating at about 40% efficiency."Yeah, please do. That would be the best number ever in the entire history of wind energy, anywhere in the world. I can hardly wait to see it.
Rufus: How are you able to turn this:"This reflects the expected annual performance of all wind generation installed in Iowa to date, not historic performance." - into this:"They account for 20% of Electricity Production in Iowa, and S. Dakota"Perhaps you could consider using actual information, instead of rosy projections by people who have much to gain from the promotion of wind energy.Your wishing doesn't make it so.
Benji,"Gee, no right-wing ridicule of Santorum and his mandates for ethanol or methanol. Gee why not?"While I don't agree with Santorum here, he's just calling for another regulation. Your boyfriend has issued a mountain of them in the past 3 years. Not the same as the unprecedented requirement for every American to purchase a product as mandated in Obamacare."Is this really stuff we want to teach to children?"Yeah, I agree but tt's just one of the many aspects of the Critical Race Theory that guides your boyfriend's policies.
Note the links to government sources in this IER article: On a Btu Basis, Renewable Subsidies are 49 Times Greater than Fossil Fuel SubsidiesIs it merely some clever manipulation of numbers or is there something substative to it all?
actually rufus, it shows that you do not read carefully.those are still estimates.let's take gray county:"It produces 112 MW of electricity from 170 Vestas V-47 wind turbines"a v-47 is a 660 kw turbine. 170 X 660kw = 112mw, so that's vace, not output.i suggest you go read the EIA methodology.http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.htmlnowhere do they actually measure power put into a line.it's all estimates. you are validating a 30% estimate with a 30% estimate.they work like this:"he Form EIA 906/920 data for 2004-2006 have been updated.A new method of allocating fuel consumption between electric power generation and useful thermal output (UTO) was implemented for 2004-2008. This new methodology proportionally distributes a combined heat and power (CHP) plant’s losses between the two output products (electric power and UTO). In the historical data, UTO was consistently assumed to be 80 percent efficient and all other losses at the plant were allocated to electric power. This change results in the fuel for electric power to be lower, while the fuel for UTO is higher than the prior set of data as both are given the same efficiency. This results in the appearance of an increase in efficiency of production of electric power between 2003 and 2004."it's all models and assumptions.the NEVER measure power coming out of a plant nor the inputs going in.you are using assumption to back up assumption.also note:even at 30%, these farms lose money hand over fist.330 mwh a year sells for about $10k wholesale.let's use your (low) number of $2 million per mw.this plant cost 112 X 2 = $224 million.let's cut that in half, just for fun.112 million in costs.now lets assume that the 330mwh the site points to is a typo and it's really 1000 times that. (that they meant mwh, not kwh)that's still $1 million a year in wholesale power for over $100 million in investment.that's sub 1% return even before line loss and maintenance.it's a massive loser even at their assumptions.generation over the useful life of the turbines is going to be maybe 30% of what they cost if we are really generous.so how is that the wave of the future?it's an economic disaster.
"the balde tips at 22 rpm move at over 90m/s. that's 185 mph."And those birds have no historical experience of huge objects approaching them at that speed. It's the same problem they have with airplanes.Give them a few million years to evolve, and they will learn to avoid them.Also, all other roadkill will most likely be a thing of the past by then.
Rufus: "You're talking about 1/27th of an acre for 5,256 MW Hrs/annually. (figuring a .30 Conversion Factor)Or, 141,912 Megawatt/Hrs annually for an acre.Not much of a deal, I think."Wait! wait! Is there nothing else? are any access roads required? room for maintenance and repair - and yes there will be some. How about distribution? Do any wires need to go anywhere? What's this 141,912 Megawatt/Hrs annually for an acre? are you assuming these things can be stacked up front to back and side to side like that?You need to rethink what you are saying. There is a minimum space required between turbines, to get full use of the wind, otherwise you are just creating wind shadows.You obviously aren't thinking clearly, and aren't understanding what others are telling you.And please, try to be more careful with numbers.
"a maintenance worker will be required for approx. every six, or seven turbines. The salary of that maintenance worker can only be predicted within certain parameters."You can predict what a wind turbine maintenance worker will be making in 2033? Incredible! Where do you get this stuff?I can predict that such a worker will make $0 in that year, because there won't be any of them left by then. Wind turbines will be a crumbling blight on the landscape.
"Somewhere out there, there does exist an objective truth. starting the search for it with an established dogmati position, (either pro or con), does not help converge on that truth any sooner.If it develops over time that Rufus truths are more accurate than morganovich truths then their positions will begin to converge."That's just meaningless nonsense.Here's an objective truth for you:Steam powered ships are OK for coastal work, but will never replace sailing ships for intercontinental travel, as a ship can't carry enough wood to make the crossing.
"what will the plant cost (capital cost/labor/feedstock/etchow much will it produceand, for "how much" can I sell the product?"Don't you want to know what it will cost to operate? Are you at all curious about it's overall EROEI?In other words its "efficiency"?When morganovich gives you numbers that indicate your payback is 60 years, why don't you refute his numbers with better ones of your own, instead of falling back on that phony operating efficiency number?Even if you can show operations at 32% of faceplate, twice what M uses, you still have a 30 year payback, and that's with NO MAINTENANCE, and you still haven't accounted for the disposal costs involved for blades and other parts that DO need to be replace eventually.Where are your numbers, Rufus? Don't you understand that wind can never be economic?
Rufus: "Jon, "efficiency" is, mostly, a red herring. What matters is "Cost/Output.""Er... doesn't that directly relate to efficiency? Doesn't the cost vary directly with whether you need 10 turbines for the desired output or 20 turbines for the same output?
"No One buys "efficiency," Jon. We buy electricity. We don't care if the electricity comes from a super-duper, highly efficient windmill, or a horse turning a crank; we just want to know "What does it cost me?"And "what it cost's me" depends directly on how efficient the operation is, in terms of cost of inputs to price of outputs, assuming competition.Electricity from wind power seems to be one of those things that will forever cost more to make, then what you get out.Negative EROEI isn't a very good business plan.
Rufus: "Also, it's not a slam dunk that the worker/turbine ratio won't decline as the technology improves, and matures.There are no slam dunks for the year 2033 or any future date.If by technology improvements you mean greater reliability of the parts, you could be right. But, keep in mind that there's a certain amount of actually energy available in a given mass of moving air, just as there is a limit to the amount of solar energy available from a given area of surface.There are no order-of-magnitude improvements in either wind or solar. There is very little improvement possible in the ability to extract energy from moving air.
"BTW, Benji, Ethanol is Not subsidized, and is selling, today, on the CBOT for $2.28/gal (compared to $3.34 for gasoline.)"That's about equivalent considering energy content.Is corn subsidized?
Rufus says: "Here, Juandos"Do you really consider a press release from the AWEA a reliable & unbiased source of information? Get a grip. You're funny.
"Get a grip. You're funny"...Oh so true ron h...I find it hilarious that peope think the energy companies are conspiring against cheap energy...I mean if the energy companies really thought that building a handful of windmills was a better way to go than the enormous expense and occassional danger of drilling for oil and gas it wouldn't occur to them to go that route?!?!
Corn farmers alone have received $77.1 billion in subsidies since 1995. And that does not even include the ethanol mandate.http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=cornYou never hear pompous right-wing pettifogging about that $77.1 billion (growing every year too).But hey, let some windmills get federal lard......you see, those stupid windmill weenies don't know they are supposed work through the USDA for permanent subsidies, not the Energy Dept for one-time cash giveaways. Hence the Red States Socialist Empire is going to make sure their dicks get cut off.
"I mean if the energy companies really thought that building a handful of windmills was a better way to go than the enormous expense and occassional danger of drilling for oil and gas it wouldn't occur to them to go that route?!?!"Ah Yup.
Come on, Morgan. Someone BUYS the electricity produced. Are you telling me they are "buying estimates?"You saw where the guy in Iowa said, the unexpected warm weather made us an extra $1.9 Million. That is "money." It's not an "estimate."And, Ron, you are correct; the access road would add more area than the base of the turbine, itself. But, it doesn't matter. If a turbine ended up taking out an acre it's basically a meaningless factoid in the general scheme of things.
you come on rufus.you sent me a bunch of assumptions on output. those were not real historical numbers. look at the methodology.the gray country farm claims >30% efficiency using 13 year old small scale vestas v-47 turbines when the dutch are getting barely half that using the huge, modern ones offshore?it's just not happening. you are using a bunch of assumptions on output to justify assumptions on output. it's just circular modeling. you are not getting or using real data.further, as i showed you, even if the info you presented wasn't massively overstated, it's still a massive economic loser.i laid it out for you in great detail using the rosiest assumptions i could. the math doesn't lie.thus, you comment about "It's silly to keep railing against something that is clearly going to be a big part of the future." is pure nonsense.if paying $5-6 per $1 of NPV electricity is the future, then the future is going to be a dark place.
Benji,"Hence the Red States Socialist Empire is going to make sure their dicks get cut off."Not if your boyfriend has anything to say about it. He's going to make sure ethanol AND his green jobs crony empire are flush with tax dollars.
Morgan, your "assumptions" were so far off that I didn't bother checking your math, but here's what I'm seeing.It costs $2 Million to install a 2 MW Turbine. Said Turbine operating at 30% efficiency will produce 5,840 MW hrs of electricity, annually.That's already sold via PPA's (Power Purchase Agreements) for $50.00 per MW hr.That's $292,000.00 Annual Revenues from a $2 Million investment.No Feedstock costs, and maintenance is minimal (maybe $20,000.00/annually.)There's a reason Warren Buffet is buying these things left, and right.
Excuse me. Before you blow a gasket - $4 Million per Turbine, not two.
MIT has released a study on the effects of wind and solar on the integrity of the power grid:http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/reports/intermittent-renewables-full.pdfLong, technically detailed read (I am still working my way through it). The bottom line is that grid stability has been degraded.RufusII: If what you are posting is true, then lets remove direct and indirect subsidies of wind power (no grants or mandatory power purchases). If what you are saying is true, people like Buffet will fund wind's expansion. If not, it will die.
pseudo benny in a rather pompus fashion makes the claim: "You never hear pompous right-wing pettifogging about that $77.1 billion (growing every year too)"...You have something credible to back that statement up pseudo benny regarding these alledged 'pompous right-wing pettifogging'?
"lets remove direct and indirect subsidies of wind power"Why stop there? Remove ALL direct and indirect subsidies from all energy sources, and then compare costs.
Juandos,Of course Benji has nothing to back up his nonsense. I could spend all day linking examples of conservatives objecting to the ag subsidies his boyfriend champions, but it makes no difference. He will resume the same idiot talking points next chance he has.
Hydra:I am all for that, with one Caveat in regards to nuclear: The Feds stop making the approval process so time consuming and expensive. Approval times for the new generation 4 reactors takes a minimum of six years and millions of dollars.Toshiba has so much confidence in their design (the 4S) that they offered it at no up front cost to Galena AK. Toshiba planned to make its money selling power and steam. Galena would get the power at half or less than what they are paying now.
hydra can on occassion suprise me: "Why stop there? Remove ALL direct and indirect subsidies from all energy sources, and then compare costs"...Well consider the following from the Motely Fool: Power SourceTotal U.S. Subsidy (millions)Coal - $1,358Oil and gas - $2,820Nuclear - $2,499Biomass/biofuels - $7,761Geothermal - $273Hydro - $216Solar - $1,134Wind - $4,986
"He will resume the same idiot talking points next chance he has"...Yeah paul I'm reminded of pseudo benny's endless rant regarding the defense department and the bogus numbers he came up with as far as the yearly budget was concrned...Almost hilarious!...
>>> wind can never be a real prat of the future.No, no, no, morgan -- wind IS the real "prat" of the future.:^DLOLZ -- an astoundingly apt typo.
>>> "He will resume the same idiot talking points next chance he has"...As I have noted elsewhere, you're not arguing to convince him. It's impossible, he's got lockjaw of the brain.You're arguing to convince anyone foolish and ignorant enough to read his stuff and not ask the right questions and/or do their own homework sufficient to see what a load of crap he's selling.You're arguing in order to test your own assertions against public scrutiny.You're arguing in order to practice your own rhetorical skills in refuting charlatans and damnfools, whichever Rufus is doesn't really matter.So don't think it's a waste of time to refute his folderol. There's a goal, it's just not the one you might think it to be.
Here's estimates of levelized costs by source: www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl1.jpgfromLevelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011
From the IER: Making Sense of Levelized Costs
"It's silly to keep railing against something that is clearly going to be a big part of the future."Would you like to bet on wind and solar electric being even 15 percent of the total number of gigawatt-hours generated in the U.S. within 20 years?
"Here is a Texas Wind Farm with 278 MW max capacity that puts out over 750,000 MW hrs/yr. That's over 30% Efficiency."The proper term is "capacity factor", not "efficiency."Capacity factor
Hi Jon,You write, "One other concern I have regarding wind power is the amount of land needed to effectively generate electricity. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that all else is held equal between wind and fossil-fuel plants: they operate at the same efficiency, no impediments to getting the power where it needs to go, etc. In order for a wind farm to generate the same amount of electricity as a power plant, it needs to occupy more ground (doesn't matter if it's on dry land or the ocean). That means less land for farming, fishing, building, natural parks, ocean life, etc. Is that a problem? I'm asking, not preaching."I don't think that starting from an assumption that there are, "no impediments to getting the power where it needs to go" is a good start.A 500 MW gas turbine power plant can be located very close to a major city. That means that the electrical grid infrastructure doesn't need to be as signficant as if that 500 MW is located several states away. Also, the gas turbine power plant (or the set of gas turbine power plants) can follow the demand for electricity from the city, whereas the wind turbines cannot.*If* all of the electricity in the U.S. was generated from wind located in rural states (or well offshore...beyond anyones' sight) then the land occupied by wind wouldn't be a big deal. But *if* all the electricity in the U.S. was generated from wind that was in rural states or well offshore, then we'd need huge additional spending on infrastructure to get that power to people, especially in times that they need it.Also, right now, offshore wind is much more expensive than onshore wind. It would be very surprising to me if wind ever generates more than 15% of the U.S. electricity production in any year. P.S. I have much more hope, long-term, for photovoltaics. A house in the Southwest can generate a significant amount of its total energy use right there on the roof. It's just that, at present, it's far more expensive than power from the grid.
"Why stop there? Remove ALL direct and indirect subsidies from all energy sources, and then compare costs."Sounds like a good plan to me!
Rufus: "You're talking about 1/27th of an acre for 5,256 MW Hrs/annually. (figuring a .30 Conversion Factor)Or, 141,912 Megawatt/Hrs annually for an acre.Not much of a deal, I think."<<<Ron H beat me to the access road issue. The link below is to an aerial photo of a windfarm. The access roads to the towers require a land base that is orders of magnitude larger than the footprint of the towers.http://www.adamscountywind.com/Revised%20Site/Windmills/Other%20Issues/Crop%20dusting.htm
I see my link doesn't work. Just google aerial view of a windfarm.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.
Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
View my complete profile