Feasibility of Wind Power

[Stunt]

I was watching Report on Business Television and they had a couple of guests discussing the feasibiliy of wind energy. The two guests were an alternate energy analyst from Merril Lynch or something and the CEO of a division of TransAlta.

Trans Alta is among Canada's largest non-regulated power generation marketing companies with coal-fired, gas-fired, hydro and renewable generation assets in Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Australia.

The analyst said that wind is cheaper than all other major forms of power besides coal. He said that nuclear is currently cheaper, but if you consider the costs of new facilities, he said that wind is a viable option. He said wind is roughly 10-12cents a megawatt, and will be the cheapest and fastest to bring online when considering new output.

The CEO then started talking about the technical side, ie. birds flyinging into the blades, noise, etc. The most interesting thing he pointed out was he saw wind becoming 20-30% of the american and canadian electricity generation in the future. The analyst confirmed his numbers as accurate, and feasible.

I think this is great news if what they say is true, it's nice to see wind as an option through free market cost reductions rather than government subsidies or forcing regulation. I do understand some of the flaws of wind, but it was interesting to see these knowledgable experts endorsing the technology.

 

[irwincur]

To generate enough wind power we might actually have to put windmills near the Kerry and Kennedy mansions - can't have that.

Seriously, it is very inefficient and it take a lot of room. Not to mention, it requires specific environmental characterists to even work moderately well. To use it as a primary power souce would basically mean that we would abandon the beaches as they are the only suitable locations.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: irwincur
To generate enough wind power we might actually have to put windmills near the Kerry and Kennedy mansions - can't have that.

Seriously, it is very inefficient and it take a lot of room. Not to mention, it requires specific environmental characterists to even work moderately well. To use it as a primary power souce would basically mean that we would abandon the beaches as they are the only suitable locations.

Wind doesn't have to be by the water, and you can even build them out in the ocean. Valleys are a good placement area for wind as well. You really didn't have to bring the Kerrys and Kennedys into this, if the power is economically feasible, why would you shoot it down?

Just because you are a self proclaimed conservative, doesn't mean you have to be against environmentally friendly technology. Cheaper power implementation = Cheaper electricity for you.

 

[K1052]

My problem with wind is that there is no efficent way to store power for non-windy days.

What happens if we hit one of these periods at a point when dropping 10% or 15% of our generating capacity would cause serious problems (summer heat wave for example)?

Personally I'd much rather see us buy or license the design for some CANDU reactors.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: K1052
My problem with wind is that there is no efficent way to store power for non-windy days.

What happens if we hit one of these periods at a point when dropping 10% or 15% of our generating capacity would cause serious problems (summer heat wave for example)?

Personally I'd much rather see us buy or license the design for some CANDU reactors.

I dont think anyone is saying to replace all other sources but it can be used effectively as part of the grid. To provide a good source of cheap, pollution free energy to reduce demand on other sources. When its not windy just turn up output on the other sources. It allready works that way.

 

[Stunt]

Nuclear Power

Operating Costs:
1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas.

Capital Costs:
$1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants.

Wind Power Company

Operating Costs:
(the costs of operating and maintaining the wind farm) of $0.01 per kWh

Capital Costs:
$1,500,000 per MW for wind vs. $2,100,000 per MW for nuclear with wind taking 4 years to make, nuclear taking 10 years.

Time to build is an important consideration as 6 years more of capital investment is a lot more costly than starting a plant up in 4 years and starting to profit immediately off the plant.

So, if wind is cheaper from a initial capital cost perspective and is almost half the cost to operate, and can be built faster, could we be dealing with a competitor finally?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: K1052
My problem with wind is that there is no efficent way to store power for non-windy days.

What happens if we hit one of these periods at a point when dropping 10% or 15% of our generating capacity would cause serious problems (summer heat wave for example)?

Personally I'd much rather see us buy or license the design for some CANDU reactors.

I dont think anyone is saying to replace all other sources but it can be used effectively as part of the grid. To provide a good source of cheap, pollution free energy to reduce demand on other sources. When its not windy just turn up output on the other sources. It allready works that way.

I never said complete replacement either.

Depending on load could be times when the reserve capacity of our fixed output sources would not be able to cover the shortage unless that is taken into account when new plants are built.

 

[sandorski]

Bring it on.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I've always said..

Wind power - Go for it.
Solar power - Go for it.
Hydroelectric power - Go for it.
"Cell" power - Go for it.
Van-D-Kamps Pork 'n Beans - Go for it, but downwind.

 

[irwincur]

You really didn't have to bring the Kerrys and Kennedys into this, if the power is economically feasible, why would you shoot it down?

Yes I do.

Both of the eminent environmental luminaries prevented the construction of windmills near their vacations home. Would have ruined their views.

So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuclear Power

Operating Costs:
1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas.

Capital Costs:
$1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants.

Wind Power Company

Operating Costs:
(the costs of operating and maintaining the wind farm) of $0.01 per kWh

Capital Costs:
$1,500,000 per MW for wind vs. $2,100,000 per MW for nuclear with wind taking 4 years to make, nuclear taking 10 years.

Time to build is an important consideration as 6 years more of capital investment is a lot more costly than starting a plant up in 4 years and starting to profit immediately off the plant.

So, if wind is cheaper from a initial capital cost perspective and is almost half the cost to operate, and can be built faster, could we be dealing with a competitor finally?

More advanced reactor designs will reduce the operating costs by some measure.
Nuclear offers a guaranteed capacity at less cost than other solutions.

Wind power would be a supplement if anything, not a direct competitor.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

I think he really means the NIMBY crowd, some of whom happen to be environuts.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuclear Power

Operating Costs:
1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas.

Capital Costs:
$1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants.

Wind Power Company

Operating Costs:
(the costs of operating and maintaining the wind farm) of $0.01 per kWh

Capital Costs:
$1,500,000 per MW for wind vs. $2,100,000 per MW for nuclear with wind taking 4 years to make, nuclear taking 10 years.

Time to build is an important consideration as 6 years more of capital investment is a lot more costly than starting a plant up in 4 years and starting to profit immediately off the plant.

So, if wind is cheaper from a initial capital cost perspective and is almost half the cost to operate, and can be built faster, could we be dealing with a competitor finally?

More advanced reactor designs will reduce the operating costs by some measure.
Nuclear offers a guaranteed capacity at less cost than other solutions.

Wind power would be a supplement if anything, not a direct competitor.

If I may jump in, I'm not going to debate this versus that, but I'd like to comment on your last statement.

I think society as a whole is looking for a "fix-all" for the substitution of fossil fuels. I don't think that's possible right now, but we have enough ideas floating about now that we could do it, if we used ALL alternatives. This is, of course, dependent on geographic location and conditions.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

I think he really means the NIMBY crowd, some of whom happen to be environuts.

What's so terrible about a wind farm? I think it looks awesome. /shrug

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

I think he really means the NIMBY crowd, some of whom happen to be environuts.

What's so terrible about a wind farm? I think it looks awesome. /shrug

They just don't want to look at them.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

I think he really means the NIMBY crowd, some of whom happen to be environuts.

What's so terrible about a wind farm? I think it looks awesome. /shrug

They just don't want to look at them.

I can under a nuclear plant, but a wind farm? Strange people in this world. I bet they wouldn't mind some nasty, coal-fired plant nearby though..

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

So would I!

The proposed wind farm referred was so far off shore it would only have been a speck on the horizon. The opponents were not the kerrys & kennedys as some would like to spin this, but some residents who did not realize how far out they were going to be built. I would suspect a lot of those riche rich types have stock in oil & coal.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: irwincur
So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.

If you can find ONE enviro-whacko to denounce wind power, I'd be utterly suprised.

So would I!

The proposed wind farm referred was so far off shore it would only have been a speck on the horizon. The opponents were not the kerrys & kennedys as some would like to spin this, but some residents who did not realize how far out they were going to be built. I would suspect a lot of those riche rich types have stock in oil & coal.

I only have stock in oil/gas/coal at the moment. Most of our energy is generated by hydro, nuclear, and coal...the demand for coal is not going down as the facilities are built and it's cheap to make. Oil and gas is hardly used to produce power, so wind/solar/nuclear will not affect oil prices in any way shape or form.

 

[piasabird]

I think wind is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of power. One big draw back is that in a lot of locations that are scenic they might be a bit of an eye sore. I was wondering if it was possible to harness the power of the wave motion in the ocean to create power. The Ocean is relentless and the waves keep coming. The only problem is that the tides tend to move in and out. With the right design you could even use old oil platforms or something similar and make the turbines go up and down with the swell.

As far as wind goes it is a great way to make power. Many people use this and solar power together because often wind is good at night or when the clouds roll in and the sky is overcast During a strom the wind is blowing even if the sun is not shining.

Many people harp about Nuclear power being so inexpensive, the problem is they do not take into account that it produces a serious problem with storing nuclear waste. Technologies are available to recycle spent fuel rods, but that is an added expense. Somone has to store contaminated nuclear waste somewhere. Also accidents will happen the more widespread the use of nuclear power becomes. They have had accidents in places like France where some Airborne nuclear contaminates managed to escape and the public was not even notified. It is unclear if something like this will cause future birth defects or what the effects may be in the long term. However, nuclear power may actually be cleaner in terms of the environment if we reduce things like acid rain and smoke stack emissions. Maybe if we developed more nuclear power, we could develop better ways of handling it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think wind is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of power. One big draw back is that in a lot of locations that are scenic they might be a bit of an eye sore. I was wondering if it was possible to harness the power of the wave motion in the ocean to create power. The Ocean is relentless and the waves keep coming. The only problem is that the tides tend to move in and out. With the right design you could even use old oil platforms or something similar and make the turbines go up and down with the swell.

As far as wind goes it is a great way to make power. Many people use this and solar power together because often wind is good at night or when the clouds roll in and the sky is overcast During a strom the wind is blowing even if the sun is not shining.

Many people harp about Nuclear power being so inexpensive, the problem is they do not take into account that it produces a serious problem with storing nuclear waste. Technologies are available to recycle spent fuel rods, but that is an added expense. Somone has to store contaminated nuclear waste somewhere. Also accidents will happen the more widespread the use of nuclear power becomes. They have had accidents in places like France where some Airborne nuclear contaminates managed to escape and the public was not even notified. It is unclear if something like this will cause future birth defects or what the effects may be in the long term. However, nuclear power may actually be cleaner in terms of the environment if we reduce things like acid rain and smoke stack emissions. Maybe if we developed more nuclear power, we could develop better ways of handling it.

Nice post. I agree that we need to engage using more nuclear power with extreme caution.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think wind is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of power. One big draw back is that in a lot of locations that are scenic they might be a bit of an eye sore. I was wondering if it was possible to harness the power of the wave motion in the ocean to create power. The Ocean is relentless and the waves keep coming. The only problem is that the tides tend to move in and out. With the right design you could even use old oil platforms or something similar and make the turbines go up and down with the swell.

As far as wind goes it is a great way to make power. Many people use this and solar power together because often wind is good at night or when the clouds roll in and the sky is overcast During a strom the wind is blowing even if the sun is not shining.

Many people harp about Nuclear power being so inexpensive, the problem is they do not take into account that it produces a serious problem with storing nuclear waste. Technologies are available to recycle spent fuel rods, but that is an added expense. Somone has to store contaminated nuclear waste somewhere. Also accidents will happen the more widespread the use of nuclear power becomes. They have had accidents in places like France where some Airborne nuclear contaminates managed to escape and the public was not even notified. It is unclear if something like this will cause future birth defects or what the effects may be in the long term. However, nuclear power may actually be cleaner in terms of the environment if we reduce things like acid rain and smoke stack emissions. Maybe if we developed more nuclear power, we could develop better ways of handling it.

Yup, there are actually generating plants that use the rise and fall of tides. Have been for along time, just not very common though.

 

[Stunt]

Caution yes. But you guys act as though nuclear is a new thing, nuclear develops 20% of US electricity and there are over 400 nuclear power generating stations globally...so this is not something that has not been pioneered.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Caution yes. But you guys act as though nuclear is a new thing, nuclear develops 20% of US electricity and there are over 400 nuclear power generating stations globally...so this is not something that has not been pioneered.

Yes, but to flood the country with nuclear plants would stir up a whole hornet's nest of problems.

Do I think there's room for more nuclear plants? You bet, just not everywhere.

 

[piasabird]

Even if it costs more for things like Hydro Electric power one thing we often overlook is that there is a benefit to us as humans when we elect to use cleaner power that is hard to quantify. I think the cleaner air is worth the higher electricity costs. One way to offset this is to have the government hand out development cost incentives to get the plant built.