Special Report: The Rising Cost of Wind Development

Richard,

You are absolutely correct that the rising cost of commodities is not due to the growing wind industry!

In the report, however, I do not suggest that wind is the cause of the price hike. It was simply poor, rushed wording in my write-up above, and it is fixed.

Thanks very much for the correction. I do appreciate it.

-Stephen Lacey 

You say 'Increased worldwide demand for wind energy has driven up the prices for commodities such as steel, copper and concrete and caused a shortage of turbines.'

I don't think so!  The amounts of those commodities used for all the intended new builds would be a 'drop in the ocean' of world-wide use.  Silicon wafer for PV - yes, but not the amount of copper in a turbine! Shortages of steel and copper are probably directly, or indirectly, attributable to the bouyant Chinese economy.

While I am all for increased renewable energy, slips like this are likely to make the lives of the 'anti-renewables' snipers easier. Look at it this way. IF wind energy had cost the worldwide economy (all the extra costs for those commodities) that much, the renewables would not be worth the cost (hidden) or the energy from them would be vastly more expensive than we know it to be.  Please take care how you word things. RAB

I see this struggle for wind power systems as wasted energy to solve a problem that has a much better solution. Wind and solar both have huge draw backs. No wind or no sun means no energy. Not to mention both are inherently expensive as well to install and maintain. What a poor solution. The most reliable source of energy on this planet is water power. It is thousands of times greater in energy content than wind and solar together, ten times more dependable, and much less expensive to build and maintain. But we still continue to waste time and money on solar and wind. Why? Because people have started down that road, and this is where they’re headed. But those who invest in this are going to find their money wasted. Hydro will displace them both, and will continue to serve as mankind’s eternal energy solution. Don’t believe that? Well, its your money. Hope you won’t miss it when its gone.

My understanding after seeing Professor Nathan Lewis (of Caltech) speak at UMass this Fall is that hydroelectric  is necessary but insufficient to cover the energy needs. The numbers quoted:

•  Gross theoretical potential             4.6 TW

•  Technically feasible potential           1.5 TW

•  Economically feasible potential        0.9 TW

•  Installed capacity in 1997               0.6 TW

•  Production in 1997                         0.3 TW

(can get to 80% capacity in some cases)

Source: WEA 2000

 I believe the point is that most of the economically feasible hydroelectric sites are already being used to produce electricity, and they are not producing nearly enough energy to cover the total need. (Silver buckshot, no silver bullet, right?)

I thought  Professor Lewis's presentation was very informative; it is available here (http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html) if you are interested. My main takeaways after seeing his talk were: wind is the most cost-effective r.e. player in the short-term; solar will grow and become a more important contributor; storage is a problem we must solve.

Tim, not everyone has a large backyard with waterfalls; where-as a roof, hopefully, is over our heads.

As someone running "the largest dry mill ethanol producer in the U.S.," Jeff Broin is hardly a disinterested commentator when he talks about the energy in / energy out ratio involved in producing ethanol, and he is being selective when he cites the USDA study. As far as i can tell, the matter is still under discussion, and it may be a while before  the last word is in. But i wouldn't trust an industry analysis, or anyone in bed with them, like the USDA.

 As for the insigificant impact that corn price increases have had on finished product, i buy the argument as it applies to your box of Corn Flakes - incidentally, to my mind an argument for paying farmers more for their grain - but the peasants in Mexico don't buy their food in the form of Corn Flakes, and it's pretty well accepted that grain ethanol has increased the price of corn to them and others like them substantially.