Solar and other alternative power

[wkmac]

Wind farms not unlike solar farms are a means to keep power generation centralized which maintains a privileged cartelized energy industry who stands to profit. Add to that the direct and embedded taxes upon consumed energy and you having the making of both a corporate mechanism and state mechanism who do not want to see a change in the status quo.

Both solar and wind perform best at the micro generation scale, not all wine and roses there either, but the problem with micro generation is this tends to knock both the corp energy and the state who benefit the most from the current centralized grid energy model out of its current economic model.

Neither like that arrangement and both are working hand in hand to protect each others vested interests.

 

[rod]

The wind mills are a joke. When you factor in the cost of hauling them to the site (at least 6 oversize semis with escort vehicles), the cost of leasing the farmers land every year, the cost of a crew to erect them, the cost to hook them up to the power grid and year to year maintenance its a losing proposition to the consumer. They are just like E-85 corn fuel---if it wasn't for being subsidized they would be out of business in a year.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

The wind mills are a joke. When you factor in the cost of hauling them to the site (at least 6 oversize semis with escort vehicles), the cost of leasing the farmers land every year, the cost of a crew to erect them, the cost to hook them up to the power grid and year to year maintenance its a losing proposition to the consumer.

But what's the cost and environmental savings over decades?

 

[oldngray]

But what's the cost and environmental savings over decades?

Pretty much nil. They wear out before paying for their costs.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Pretty much nil. They wear out before paying for their costs.

Maybe they will find a more economical way to build them?

 

[rod]

But what's the cost and environmental savings over decades?

I don't think their life expectancy is decades without continuous maintenance. Every time I go by a wind farm they seem to have a third of them shut down for some reason or another.

 

[rod]

Pretty much nil. They wear out before paying for their costs.

Why is it only the older generation can look beyond the smoke and mirrors of all this "green" crap and see it for what it is. Just another way to keep a select few in the uber rich category. Our little piss ant nation isn't going to save the Earth. The fires out west have put more pollution in the atmosphere than anything humans are doing here. China and India and Africa and the mid-east don't give a crap about air pollution so what the US does is a piddly drop in the bucket and isn't helping in the least. I think I will go burn a tire.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Why is it only the older generation can look beyond the smoke and mirrors of all this "green" crap and see it for what it is. Just another way to keep a select few in the uber rich category. Our little piss ant nation isn't going to save the Earth. The fires out west have put more pollution in the atmosphere than anything humans are doing here. China and India and Africa and the mid-east don't give a crap about air pollution so what the US does is a piddly drop in the bucket and isn't helping in the least. I think I will go burn a tire.

One of these reasons I'm a fan of alternative energy is. Less oil money the middle East gets from us.

 

[rod]

One of these reasons I'm a fan of alternative energy is. Less oil money the middle East gets from us.

They or someone else is going to get your money in the long run. Look at the situation now---the price of a barrel of oil is at an all time low for the last 10 years yet prices at the pump are going up because (and this is a good one) some refinery is having a problem. Just another manufactured excuse to rape the public.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

They or someone else is going to get your money in the long run. Look at the situation now---the price of a barrel of oil is at an all time low for the last 10 years yet prices at the pump are going up because (and this is a good one) some refinery is having a problem. Just another manufactured excuse to rape the public.

I agree. We just need to find a balance. We need to create more good paying jobs.

Water is going to be the next big thing.

 

[Sportello]

Pretty much nil. They wear out before paying for their costs.

Science says you are wrong:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

Summary:
Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.

 

[oldngray]

Science says you are wrong:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

Summary:
Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.

Run those numbers again without the support of government subsidies and other types of energy. Then add in maintenance and repair costs which were omitted from that study. Real world numbers, not optimistic "estimates".

 

[oldngray]

http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm

Note that this paper focuses on the true cost of producing and delivering electricity from wind and not on the price paid when a utility buys electricity from a "wind farm." This latter number will often have no relationship to the true cost because of the extensive subsidies available to “wind farm” developers and owners. In fact, in the early years of a “wind farm’s” operation the value of tax breaks and subsidies generally will exceed substantially the income that a “wind farm” owner will receive from the sale of electricity!

Actual operating experience is probably around 5 years for the smaller (660 kW – 750 kW) turbines, 2 or 3 years for the 1.5 MW, and a few months for the really big ones like GE’s new 3.6 MW turbine. Anyone claiming to have solid numbers may not be telling the truth. (Also, some manufacturers have had costly problems – e.g., with gearboxes – on big, relatively new machines.)

Since the grid or control area must be kept in balance at all times (supply and demand, frequency, voltage), some generating unit(s) must be immediately available at all times to provide backup service (or balance) for the electricity (if any) coming from the wind turbines. This means that the unit(s) providing the backup service may be operating in an automatic generation control mode, running at less than peak capacity, and/or running in spinning reserve mode.

Depending on wind conditions, the amount of backup capacity may have to equal the peak capacity of a “wind farm.” That is, if wind conditions exceed the cutout speeds, the entire output of the “wind farm” could be lost.

All the potential modes result in costs – and those costs are properly allocated to the cost of the electricity from wind turbines.

 

[Sportello]

@oldngray, I prefer a recent, peer reviewed, scientific study to a 12 year old blog post.

Maybe you didn't read about factors considered:

The pair has carried out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of 2MW wind turbines in order to identify the net environmental impact of the production and use of such devices for electricity production. An LCA takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport, manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.


Their analysis shows that the vast majority of predicted environmental impacts would be caused by materials production and manufacturing processes. However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found. It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.

 

[oldngray]

@oldngray, I prefer a recent, peer reviewed, scientific study to a 12 year old blog post.

Maybe you didn't read about factors considered:

The pair has carried out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of 2MW wind turbines in order to identify the net environmental impact of the production and use of such devices for electricity production. An LCA takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport, manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.


Their analysis shows that the vast majority of predicted environmental impacts would be caused by materials production and manufacturing processes. However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found. It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.

Your "peer reviewed" study was done by supporters of wind energy and used wildly optimistic estimates instead of numbers based on real world numbers. And it also ignored many costs which my article pointed out.

 

[Sportello]

Your "peer reviewed" study was done by supporters of wind energy and used wildly optimistic estimates instead of numbers based on real world numbers. And it also ignored many costs which my article pointed out.

Now you are just making things up. None of that is remotely factual.

 

[oldngray]

Now you are just making things up. None of that is remotely factual.

Quite factual. You just don't want to admit it since it goes against your agenda.

 

[Sportello]

Quite factual. You just don't want to admit it since it goes against your agenda.

No. I have no 'agenda'. You said the paper

was done by supporters of wind energy and used wildly optimistic estimates instead of numbers based on real world numbers

That is false.

 

[oldngray]

The Institute for Energy Research released today a study titled Assessing Wind Power Cost Estimates. The study, written by Dr. Michael Giberson, an economics professor at Texas Tech University, details the costs of wind power that commonly go unreported in studies performed by government-funded groups such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The study is published as the federal wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), a massive subsidy to the wind power industry, is set to expire at the end of the year. Last year, the PTC received another one-year extension that government analysts project will cost taxpayers $12 billion.

“Despite being propped up by government mandates and billion dollar subsidies for decades, wind power continues to be an expensive and boutique energy source that the American people cannot rely on for power when they need it. Although lobbyists for the wind industry prefer to downplay the real costs of wind power, Dr. Giberson has produced a fact-based study that demonstrates just how expensive it really is.”

As Giberson states in the study, “While expenses faced by wind project developers are an important element of the overall cost of wind power, the addition of wind power to the power grid involves a number of other costs … Such costs include the expense of transmission expansions needed to develop wind power, other grid integration expenses, and added grid reliability expenses.”

The study finds:

• Under more accurate assumptions, the LCOE for wind power is $109 per MWh rather than NREL’s estimate of $72 — a more than 50 percent increase.
• NREL’s cost estimates exclude key categories of costs such as the cost of transmission and grid balancing for far-away, intermittent wind sources.
• PTC-subsidized wind power projects distort electricity markets because they can bid as low as negative $35 per MWh and still profit through the PTC.
• Adding wind power via the PTC cannot reduce the overall cost of power to the economy — it merely shifts costs to taxpayers.
  
  To read the full study, click here (PDF).

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/press/study-evaluates-the-true-costs-of-wind-power-2/

 

[Sportello]

The IER is a Koch/Exxon funded organization. Nice try, though.

That's not science, it's propaganda. Talk about an 'agenda' LOL!

The IER's American Energy Freedom Center is chaired by former Virginia Sen. George "Macaca" Allen. Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, was a policy analyst for former Rep. Tom DeLay before becoming director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.


In 2007, the most recent year for which tax filings are available, IER had a budget of nearly $1 million. In May, the Guardian reported that IER has received donations from Exxon, KBR, and trusts set up by Koch. Asked who funds the Institute for Energy Research, Bradley would say only that its money comes from "individuals, foundations, and corporations—including energy companies."