Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:26:31PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > Wind Power : A commentary from Bill Hammack's public radio program You > can listen to this commentary at http://www.engineerguy.com
> New turbines are so efficient that wind energy costs about the same as > coal, natural gas or nuclear. This statement is oversimplifying the issue to a huge degree. I've gone into detail on the issues involved in calculating costs in previous posts, so I won't repeat it here. But a clue to the problems with this statement can be found by looking at the number of free-market companies opening up wind-power-generation plants across the US -- a tiny number. If wind really cost the same as coal, then there would be a lot of companies competing to provide wind-energy to consumers (since if the costs are truly the same, such companies would have a competitive advantage because both governments and consumers would favor the wind-energy over coal at the same cost). > It's this: You have to build the wind mills where there is wind. > Typical places for wind farms, as they call banks of windmills, are > plains, shorelines, the tops of hills, and the narrow gaps between > mountains. Places rarely near transmission lines. Ah, he does mention some problems, good. Also, some of the best areas, those areas that are used in the calculation of the cost of wind power, have already been harnessed for wind in the US. In addition, there simply aren't enough of these prime-wind areas to provide a large fraction of America's power at costs comparable to coal. Especially when you consider the costly requirement of energy storage needed for wind-power. > In addition, wind power differs from fossil and nuclear fuels in a > critical way: It can supply steady electricity, but not a burst of > electricity. What a misleading way of putting it. What he should of said is that wind power provides "intermittent" or "unpredictable" or "not-on-demand" or "low-quality" power. In contrast, fossil fuels provide "steady" or "dependable" or "on-demand" power generation that can be increased when needed. > Engineers are designing special batteries to supply energy when the > wind dies down, but the problem hasn't been solved yet. And this energy storage requirement significantly increases the expense of wind-power. The calculation I did showed that the cost of conventional batteries needed to consume only power generated from 100% wind power is roughly equal to the cost of the wind turbines themselves. In other words, if you don't have a fossil fuel backup and must rely total on wind generation, then the cost of wind rougly doubles. This is another factor likely to keep wind down to a small percentage of total power generation. > So, wind power isn't the pancea that will save us. The most > optimistic estimate I can find is from the American Wind Energy > Association. They think that about six percent of America's power will > be from wind in the next twenty years. The "MOST OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE", that is. > Mostly likely wind power will be part of a patchwork of many energy > systems that, if all goes well, will supply the energy needs of the > United States. Not much of a prediction, there, since that is what we already have NOW. Overall, a better article on the subject than many I've seen, but that early statement about the costs of wind and coal being equal is extremely misleading. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
