How much can renewable energy save us?

[danielpalos]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

 

[danielpalos]

We had a molten salt reactor running before the DC dickwads shut down our nuclear program

Having a reactor is very different from having a safe and economical reactor.

Those with a bit of engineering sense understand the difference between a prototype and something useful in the real world.

It was safe
safer than any light water reactor so was the integral fast reactor
both were proven to completely self limiting

Any nuclear engineer will tell you that a molten salt reactor will be cheaper and safer than any reactor we have had running at scale

The pluses are many

No need for large amounts of water for cooling
runs at atmosphere so no huge concrete and steel containment domes
is self limiting
can be mass produced and shipped to the install site
can be buried underground
will burn spent fuel from light water reactors
and unlike wind and solar it will put out 90% of its rated capacity 24/7/365

Crap! We were told in the '50's that nuclear power would be failsafe and so cheap that we would not have to meter it. Three Mile Island and Fukushima have both proven that wrong. Electricity produced by nukes is very expensive. As far as the gen 4 and gen 5 reactors, when one is produced, and ran through tests, then I will judge on it's safety. Then we have to look at the costs, and what kind of waste is produced.

In the meantime, we can put up thousands of gigawatts of perfectly safe and cheap solar and wind installations.

Wow for someone who claims to be a science lover you just love to ignore facts and can't seem to understand that light water reactors are outdated tech. We've had reactors running that were 100% proven to be self limiting

but hey if you think a power grid based on choppy intermittent power is a good thing feel free to invest all your money in wind and let's see

and wind has not been less expensive in countries where it has been tried but let's ignore those facts too

But, you should know that Texas produces about four times more wind power than 3rd place California and three times more than 2nd place Iowa. Pretty amazing for Texas, an energy juggernaut that also supplies about 28% of our natural gas and 37% of our crude oil. Texas has surged its wind power capacity 80% to 18,000 megawatts since 2010, with actual wind generation more than doubling over that time.

There are more than 10,000 wind turbines in Texas, and at times last winter, wind supplied 40-50% of the state’s electricity. The Great Texas Wind Boom has all come without much help from legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who backed out of his grandiose wind plans in the state.
The Great Texas Wind Power Boom

Texas now produces more wind power alone than 25 U.S. states produce from all power sources combined!

Although you can read "6 Reasons Why Texas Leads the Nation in Wind Power" for yourself, one advantage for Texas is that it's the only U.S. state with its own power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which covers about 75% of the state.

This means that new investments and building long-distance transmission lines are done as lawmakers and state regulators see fit, in contrast to the political fighting that often block other ambitious long-distance transmission projects that must cross state lines. "Building wind farms is easy. Transmission lines are tough."

I guess you should explain all of that to those ultra-liberal Texans.

California is working on its grid; i am glad we legalized pot, so potheads can help out, as easily and conveniently, as paying a simple tax.

California, with a score of 88, ranks first in the Customer Engagement category (as it did in the previous GMI), and second in both State Support and Grid Operations. California has a nearly seven-point lead over second-place Illinois, while Texas (which was neck and neck with California for the top score in the previous GMI) ranks third--https://businessfacilities.com/2016/02/california-illinois-texas-lead-the-charge-toward-a-modernized-electric-grid/

 

[sealybobo]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

That's right. And what we know is wind and solar are showing great promise. Even dried up old coal towns who can't grow anything on that soil once they've stipped the land of all the coal are considering becoming a place where companies put up wind mills and solar panels. Why not? There's nothing else to look at in Appalachia. LOL.

Just kidding. Beautiful country



But google Appalachia people and what pops up?



So those woods are beautiful but I wouldn't go in them.

Last guy who did regretted it

 

[danielpalos]

don't complain; be happy and Patriotic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it doesn't matter how efficient a wind turbine is because the wind doesn't blow all the time so as real life has shown a wind turbine will only ever produce 25% of its rated capacity so no matter what you do you will have to build 4 windmills to equal the rated output of one windmill

how can you think that is a good investment?

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

we have a lot of land. a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.

when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.

we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

 

[HenryBHough]

simply upgrading wind energy technology can sextuple output.

And the flying broken vanes will be able to kill people six times as far away?

 

[danielpalos]

we already covered this; an upgraded grid means wind energy collection can happen anywhere the wind blows.

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

we have a lot of land. a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.

when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.

we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances

Upgrading substations can solve our problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

 

[danielpalos]

simply upgrading wind energy technology can sextuple output.

And the flying broken vanes will be able to kill people six times as far away?

that particular model was still in development. however, architects may have more to work with.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you can't seem to understand the concept that intermittent power is not what we need

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

we have a lot of land. a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.

when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.

we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances

Upgrading substations can solve our problem.

that will not address the problems of transmission over long distances

you do realize that a power grid based on long distance transmission of power is more vulnerable to failure or attack than a power grid with redundant generation capabilities where power is produced and transmitted in small areas don;t you?

and I will still mention the fact that wind will never produce the smooth abundant power 24/7/365 that a nuclear power plant will

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

 

[Skull Pilot]

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

California is one of the most aggressive in pushing so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring the state to consume 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Overall electricity prices in states with RPS are 38% higher than those without, according to the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group that promotes free markets.

The cost of building new transmission lines ranges from $15 to $27 per megawatt-hour.

federal and state policies add an average of $23 per megawatt-hour to the cost of wind power.

The best estimate available for the total cost of wind power is $149 per megawatt-hour, taken from Giberson’s 2013 report.

Doesn't seem like wind is very cheap to me

 

[sealybobo]

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

We could harness the currents of every ocean. We're surrounded by them.

I love people who say its impossible.

where did I ever say that was impossible

reasonable and/or feasible however are 2 entirely different matters

We have a very simple solution to produce abundant reliable and emission free power right now and for some reason all you people just ignore it for something that may or may not be economically or logistically possible sometime in the future

I don't get you people

 

[danielpalos]

with a better grid; there is Always wind blowing somewhere, for consistency purposes.

it's never blowing enough to create all the consistent power we need now never mind in the future
and even if the wind is blowing the power produced is still choppy because the wind blows at varying speeds

we have a lot of land. a better grid with more capacitance, could make that a moot point.

when you understand power transmission and the losses involved over long distances let me know.

we will be far more secure with local generation plants than we will with a power grid based on transmission from remote areas over long distances

Upgrading substations can solve our problem.

that will not address the problems of transmission over long distances

you do realize that a power grid based on long distance transmission of power is more vulnerable to failure or attack than a power grid with redundant generation capabilities where power is produced and transmitted in small areas don;t you?

and I will still mention the fact that wind will never produce the smooth abundant power 24/7/365 that a nuclear power plant will

I am advocating for underground, "conduits to markets"; operated by the public sector for the ease and convenience, of the private sector.

 

[danielpalos]

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

No, the prime reason for installing wind and solar now is that they are less costly to install, and produce electricity for less per kw. Also, they are scalable.

still using your cost per installed capacity I suppose and not actual power generated

wind in Europe has resulted in higher prices not lower what makes you think it will be any different here?

Well it's nice to know that reducing emissions isn't your first priority it seems you don't think global warming is that big of a deal

My position is, that climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

We merely need more, Perfect Knowledge of Things, that can help us live anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change. Science fiction has a model, with the Stargate Atlantis series.

 

[danielpalos]

I remember USMB republicans mocking wind and solar. They said you still need coal and oil to make wind and solar. They said it was ridiculous

Less than a decade ago, the U.S. got about half its energy from coal, and today that figure is around 30 percent.

renewables that are really becoming less costly and really beginning to penetrate the market. Over the last decade, they've tripled in the amount they account for.

it's 30% because we started using natural gas instead
So it's coal 34%
natural gas 30%
Nuclear 20%
Hydro 7%
wind 5%
Solar 1%
oil 1%

solar and wind ratios could be changing as fast as advances in technologies allow.

it will never be fast enough to make a difference in climate change and isn't that the main reason for using renewables?

there is pretty interesting stuff in the hydropower sector, as well.

we can't dam enough rivers to make hydro a main source of power

we have plenty of underutilized, aqueducts.