Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Wind's Economic Value

By Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider
September 25, 2006   |   19 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Wind's predictability is a selling point. While the fastest growing fuel form is natural gas, wind is the second largest source for new power generation in the country for two years running, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
September 26, 2006
"So what's stopping development?"

Ken. You must realize that our own US government, the FAA is still stopping 10 wind farms from being constructed in the midwest due to "possible military radar interference". While we are hemming and hawing, months go by and investors as well as company owners are discouraged.

I would like to know what factors permitted the FAA to clear the three windfarms in Minnesota and the two in Wisconsin. There must be some basic rule of thumb the FAA must be applying. What are those rules or is it clearance by state?

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
2 of 19
September 27, 2006
All:
Let me share a complexity, I came accross recently, re CO-2 and Hydro! (that is new hydro, as in Iceland)

".. hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of CO2 and methane - some more greenhouse gases than fossil-fuel power plants"
For sure, we mortals must thus accept the issues are two-tailed that is: there are negatives we may overlook, but also there are positive we may not even realize!
cheers
Comment
3 of 19
September 27, 2006
Re Two Questions from Himan Sheth
1) Max theoret efficiency is 51%. Can only suck up so much energy from wind Velocity, and still have moving air.
2) Cost. Not simple, e.g., if you are a utility cost of $ is less than if you are a private investor, and ROI period is longer (20 vs 12 years). There's a "gigawatt" farm goin' up in Asia. Its happening, either we are going to lead, or be trampled. Anyone remember vcr's, 2 cycle motorcycles, AUTOMOBILES, where's PC's made (except Dell)? Why is Brazil years ahead of us re Ethanol from Sugar Cane? Smart Cars? How can Korea introduc'g 2 new auto's, where is our abilities and talents and vision? jriam1945@aol.com
Comment
4 of 19
September 27, 2006
All:
Per my research, and some propr. IP, in choice areas of the U.S., w/o becoming exotic, Wind Gen'd Electricity should not exceed $.025/kWh. These plans are being pursued, so far, no analysis has disproven. Familiar with extant 30% of the rating is the true production. Participated in prior tech. revolutions. This is doable - CEO SannerProjects, Inc jriam1945@aol.com
Comment
5 of 19
September 27, 2006
Wind power is great, but its impact on our energy situation today is almost nil. The $251 million savings in Colorado over the the next twenty years is about one-quarter of what we pay for imported oil every day. If we want to have any real impact, the government must get involved and be prepared to invest hundreds of billions of dollars on wind, and sun, and tide, and etc. This problem is so immense that I doubt any of our politicians can even grasp it. Piecemeal will never solve it - only a Manhattan-style project may.
Comment
6 of 19
September 27, 2006
I am a proponent of wind power generation and have done considerable research in this field. Still, I do not have answer to following 2 questions.

1. What is the efficiency of wind turbine?

(Efficiency is the ratio of output electrical energy to the input wind energy in percentage point.)

2. what is the payback period in terms of money invested for the plant?
Comment
7 of 19
September 27, 2006
Dear Tom (Anderson), if you can identify some untapped hydro resources that can generate power at less than 1 cent per kwh, please tell us where they are or develop them yourself. If not, then your "numbers" are irrellevant to the choices we face today. And, if cost is the key issue, tell us about the cost of energy from the next nuclear plant (hint: double or triple current cost estimates).

Moreover, I think you will agree that Denmark doesn't generate more CO2 than France, because it has the most installed wind power. Nor are wind power and conservation mutually exclusive choices. I doubt that anyone on this site disagrees with the need to stress conservation as much as RE.

We also need to factor in the full costs of emissions through a carbon levy. Finally, at the national level, the impact of lowering demand for oil & gas on the economy's total energy costs is a more important consideration than the cost of energy at power plants alone.
Comment
8 of 19
September 27, 2006
One other thing about windpower... It's a relatively simple technology that's been around for hundreds of years...and it can be effectively harnessed to do 'work' -- whether pumping water, grinding grain, or making electricity. Folks in the steam plant business (whether boilers use nuclear, coal, gas, or oil fuel) require complex, central source generation infrastructures and massive grids of transmission lines. Windpower is not complex, it can readily feed distributed energy systems, and the technology is far less costly to maintain. What part of 'common sense' don't we understand ?? Why do we have to try to 'overdesign' everything and make it technically complex (and costly). Shouldn't we be learning the KISS concept and install as many windfarms as possible while we can still afford it ? Focusing more R&D on efficient turbine design may well get the per/kw cost of wind even below that of large-scale hydro.
Comment
9 of 19
September 27, 2006
With due respect to Mr. Anderson, France may have the "cleanest" power generation, using nuclear for 80% of its mix. BUT....waste storage for spent fuel rods, or the reprocessing of the nuclear fuel, is definitely not clean. It's a technically complex process that requires incredible safeguards, and it's expensive. Safe storage of spent fuel rods also requires almost heroic measures (view the Yucca Mountain controversy here that's gone on for years now...). Contending that nuclear is 'clean' is a myth...and when you add the cost of fuel rod creation, then either the reprocessing or long-term storage of spent fuel to the equation, it becomes FAR more expensive than virtually every renewable energy source. That's why U.S. utilities don't want to mess with it anymore...the bottom line simply doesn't 'pay.'
Comment
10 of 19
September 27, 2006
As mentioned the Wind Energy promoters write very good press releases and one should not be fooled.The fact that Wind can contribute as a low emissions producer is admirable ,but lets not count on the installed capacity of 10,000MW actually displacing the equivalent of CO2 from coal fired plants that have modern combustion systems.The 10,00MW equals only 3,000MW of actual capacity.One MW of installed high efficiency GTCC plant powers 800 homes while one MW of installed WTG's can only power 300 homes optimistically.
The additional cost of the 'extra" WTG can more gainfully spent on Bulk Energy Storage technolgies, this will allow deeper penetration of Wind Energy in the power market and bring real value from the ambitious 20 % renewable energy projected or desired.
Comment
11 of 19
September 27, 2006
People are under the false impression that it's normal for a utility to be inflexible with regards
to power supply and that wind somehow is upsetting some balance. The business of supplying energy is anything but constant. Changing supply to meet everchanging demand and having reserves when those 90% uptime gas fired plants go down is what the power supply business is all about.
Both supply and demand are ALWAYS changing.
Wind will undoubedly raise the cost slightly by
requiring on-demand supply sources be always at the ready, but those costs are pretty small
and insignificant. It may also prove more cost effective to find a means of buffering wind output. Several methods have been advanced.
It's up to the utilities and the experts to decide
the best path here. The public is not qualified to
make or approve any decisions in these matters.
Comment
12 of 19
September 27, 2006
I'm a strong proponent of wind power and agree that everyone will benefit if govt offers wind at least as many subsidies as it does the other wnergy sources. What gripes me about Silverstein is that he's a liar, although a typical one. He talks about wind power AS THOUGH it really has 10,000MW of real capacity. It does not. At no time has the actual generating capability exceeded 3,500 MW. He talks about CO2 displacement, etc as if wind were really generating 10,000 MW of electricity.
His point about relative costs is accurate. The relative costs of wind versus non-renewables
at this pioint is a silly debate. We KNOW that the costs of non-renewable energy are going upwards, and that the primary energy source of wind power will still be free 20 years from now.
Comment
13 of 19
September 27, 2006
When prices are quoted for wind it isn't very clear what type of power product is being provided. Since wind is variable some other generation resource must be used to firm the wind resource to match it to load. In the Pacific Northwest there is a regional effort to decide how to integrate large amounts of intermittant wind resources into the Northwest power system.

What I'd like to know is how other parts of the country, say Texas, is doing this integration. Is natural gas being used?
Comment
14 of 19
September 27, 2006
Yeah, hydro power is free too - all you have to do is build, repair and improve the facility.

Right now it costs about 20 c/kwh for wind. The difference between that and the 4 - 7 quoted in the article is due to tax breaks that corps get to install wind.

Capital costs and maintenance DO matter. For wind, water and nuclear, capital costs are the biggest cost.

You can't have a conclusion like yours without actually looking at the numbers. Wind sounds great - until you have to pay for it. Some hydro plants can make a profit at 1 cent/kwh.

Long term - who knows - the cost of wind power WAS going down, until the government decided to turn it into political pork.
Comment
15 of 19
September 27, 2006
Pardon my naivete - I'm still trying to learn the science and economics of renewal energy. But, whether it costs 4-7 cents per kwh or more, subsidized or not, the key question to me is stability of prices. The resource input price (cost of wind going to generate the electricity) appears to be forever stable at 0. the only added costs in the future will be capital maintenance and repair, won't it? Other resources (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear) will always have highly variable (and probably increasing) costs, plus the capital costs of production. So wind generated energy would appear to be economically far more feasible in the long term than many of the other resources we currently use.
Comment
16 of 19
September 27, 2006
Wind at 4 to 7 cents/kwh - ha ha. The cost of wind power is much higher than this. They write good press releases, though. There are so many environmental choices such as conservation and geothermal heating and cooling that are better than wind. Guess which european country has the cleanest electrical generation - Answer: France with 80% nuclear generated. Guess which country generates 20 times more pollution per kwh than France and is the dirtiest generator in europe? Answer: Dennmark.

--Tom Andersen
Comment
17 of 19
September 28, 2006
Gene- What you say may all be true, but it seems to be a horrible outlook. It might "only" save 251 million over 20 years, but thats more than I, or the town I live in is likely to make in that time period. A Mahattan style project would be much better, but every little bit helps out some. If each persons pathetic contrabution doesn't affect the grand scheme of things in some way we might as well give in right now.
Comment
18 of 19
September 28, 2006
J. Rosenberg. I have placed your quote on hydroelectric dams into the google search but have not come up with any documentation. Please indicate where you located this information.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
19 of 19
October 12, 2006
Mr. Anderson is mis-informed about the economics of wind. Fact: Many purchased power agreements (PPA) between wind developers and utilities from 2003 & 2004 were for power at around 3 cents/kwh. At least two of these contracts appear in public records at my Commission. The federal production tax credit for wind is generally valued at 1.8 cents/kwh, thus the unsubsidized price for wind in good locations was around 5 cents/kwh. My understanding is that today's unsubsidized price is higher, in the 7 cent range, due to cost increases for steel, etc., and strong demand for turbines.

If a wind farm has a nameplate capacity of say, 100MW, that means that under ideal wind conditions, it produces 100 MW. Most wind installations have a capacity factor somewhere around 30%, meaning that on an annual basis, the energy produced is around 30% of 365x24xnameplate.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

The Stella Group, Ltd. Rolls Battery Engineering Rittal Corporation Upsolar Renewable Energy World Africa Conergy Inc. US Solar Institute
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters