Onshore Wind electricity is cheaper than natural gas, nuclear and coal power.

[grahamhgreen]

A study commissioned by the EU shows that onshore wind electricity is cheaper than natural gas, nuclear and coal power. The study takes into account climate change, human health and the like for a more complete total cost of energy production. The study found that the cost per megawatt-hour is about $133 for onshore wind, $235 for offshore wind, $168 for nuclear, $207 for gas, $274 for photovoltaic and between $205 and $295 for coal. European Wind Energy Association's deputy CEO Justin Wilkes says, "Not only does the Commission's report show the alarming cost of coal but it also presents onshore wind as both cheaper and more environmentally-friendly."

EWEA said onshore and offshore wind technologies also have room for significant cost reduction. Coal on the other hand is a fully mature technology and is unlikely to reduce costs any further.

“We are heavily subsidising the dirtiest form of electricity generation while proponents use coal’s supposed affordability as a justification for its continued use,” added Wilkes. “The irony is that coal is the most expensive form of energy in the European Union. This report shows that we should use the 2030 climate and energy package as a foundation for increasing the use of wind energy in Europe to improve our competitiveness, security and environment.”Read more at Domestic Fuel.

http://domesticfuel.com/2014/10/13/offshore-wind-cheaper-than-coal-gas-nuclear/

[NBachers]

1. All seashores have heavy bird populations. I'm not real alarmist about bird danger at inland wind

facilities, but I'm aware of it. Is there a design that could work on coastal areas that would be more bird-safe?

A Google search of "bird safe wind turbines" turns up a lot of results. I'm not sure how efficient or production-ready any of these designs are.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Far more animals are killed by fossil fuel extraction than will ever be killed by windmills. Just

look st the single BP spill... Still killing and destroying ecosystems.

[grahamhgreen]

9. Note that Europe has 421 million fewer birds than 30 years ago,

This is not caused by wind.

[Chico Man]

2. "Not a Fan"

Lining the beautiful mountain ridges of New England with unsightly turbines is not a good solution. The impact goes far beyond the destructive roads needed for installation and service and the impact on wildlife.

[grahamhgreen]

4. You would have to agree its a better solution than coal, and "Mt Top Removal"!

[Chico Man]

14. Yes

But hate the fact that it will soon be difficult to find any place that is untouched.

[LWolf]

5. Having lived

for decades in an area with wind turbines clearly visible on the mountainsides, I have to say that I never found them "unsightly."


I took pleasure in knowing that they were producing cleaner energy. To contrast:

[grahamhgreen]

6. And here's what they do to get coal (talk about unsightly):

There's nothing left! Ecosystem, habitats and all wildlife destroyed!

[LWolf]

30. Yep.

"Unsightly" is mild for that devastation.

[Chico Man]

12. Can we at least preserve some natural untouched spots?

Is there anywhere left to go to experience true nature?

[LWolf]

31. Yes.

I am all for untouched nature. Even lightly touched nature.

The best solution for that is to address the grossly over-populated planet.

Meanwhile, producing clean energy is better than producing dirty, planet-harming energy.

[KamaAina]

15. California has some beautiful mountain ridges, too

[Chico Man]

16. No trees to cut down, like in VT and NH.

[Marrah_G]

20. I am a new englander through and through

I love it here and could never live anywhere else. With that said, wind turbines are far better for the environment then fossil fuels and nuclear. I don't find them all that unsightly.

[Chico Man]

22. On a previously untouched ridge?

They need to go in already affected landscapes. When I see ridges in NH and VT lined with turbines I cringe. When I see farmland lined with turbines I don't really care.. Guess it's just personal preference.

[Marrah_G]

23. I think that when I see them, I see freedom from fossil fuels

and all the destruction that goes along with those fuels. There will always be a price to pay for electricity.

[hunter]

7. Not really. Nobody ever factors in the cost of agile backup power or energy storage.

The filthy fracking gas industry's utopia is wind and solar power backed up by gas turbines or fuel cells. The way the weather and daylight works, this means that by yearly average more than half the electricity on the network will be generated by gas once the system is entirely built out.

The alternative to gas backup power is expensive and/or environmentally destructive pumped hydro projects, which may fail in times of drought unless they use ocean water.

Fracked gas sucks as bad as coal and even makes nuclear power look good.

Unfortunately, by the gas industy's use of the utterly brilliant and deceptive marketing term "natural" gas, and with it's claws sunk deeply into mass media, including public broadcasting, people in general seem to have a positive opinion of combination wind and gas power generation. Being "better than coal" is a pretty low standard to aim for, and in terms of greenhouse gases and toxins leaking into the environment, fracked gas is coal's equal in awfulness.

We could build a society where large centrally managed power grids are less important to our daily living. I think one of the things we ought to be aiming for is homes, offices, and industry that are more self-sufficient about heating and cooling.

A household ought to be able to coast along in reasonable comfort for a few days when the power and gas are off, nobody getting killed by heat or cold, with enough electricity to read by, charge the family smart phones, and make it to the bathroom at night without stumbling in the dark.

We don't need more or "alternative" sources of power, we need to learn how to live comfortably using much less power.

[grahamhgreen]

8. Actually, hydro backup has been proven to be a viable alternative to your suggestions:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/12/el-hierro-1st-island-powered-exclusively-wind-water/

[hunter]

10. Most hydro sucks.

Conventional hydro has hugely adverse environmental impacts and often increases greenhouse gas emissions while reducing carbon sequestration.

I'm glad to see they are using pumped hydro in your example, independent of natural waterways.

I'd generally prefer solar over wind. As the price of solar panels decreases and desalinization technology improves this will become a more economical option. From my perspective solar collectors built over previously developed land are easy maintenance, fail gracefully, and don't eat so many bats or birds as wind turbines do.

Most isolated places with populations of 10,000 simply use a few large diesel generators. Nantucket, Massachusetts, with a similar population, was powered by big diesel engines before undersea power lines connected it to the mainland.

http://www.ackenergy.org/brief-history-of-energy-on-nantucket.html

There are many smaller remote towns all over the world where the thrumming of a big diesel generator is constant. The sound of a large diesel engine and the odor always reminds me of being on fishing boats with my dad when I was a kid. I always notice when our local hospital is testing it's backup generators.

Ideally most power would be generated locally using local energy sources. Communities would have to live with the consequences of their power supply choices. As it is now, a coal mine, a fracking field, uranium mining, nuclear waste disposal, giant hydroelectric projects, refineries can be hundreds or thousands of miles away from the people benefiting from the electricity, people who suffer few of the adverse consequences of the energy source other than global warming or the war taxes they pay to expropriate or defend the remote, environmentally destructive resource.

[grahamhgreen]

11. It's amazing to me that we spent $500 each last year subsidizing fossil fuels an only $7

Per tax payer in solar. If we reversed that, solar. Would become instantly our best option!

[Major Hogwash]

27. Yeah, that would definitely be a better way to go.

But, what would happen to all those coal miner's daughters?
What would country singers sing about then?

[hunter]

29. yep...

...think of those poor coal miners and gas frackers.

Just imagine how rotten their lives would be if they were out there insulating homes and installing solar or geothermal energy systems or something...

[True Blue Door]

17. I like wind, but I LOVE solar.

Definitely the most intellectually stimulating energy source, and undoubtedly the one with the biggest future. This is the graph that the fossil fuel industry refers to as the "Terrordome":

[img][/img]

[hunter]

18. Solar panels over parking lots for electric vehicles is a good idea.

Free shade and "fuel" for employee and customer vehicles, all in one.

It's already reality in some places. My own community has a few solar parking lots.

Nobody should have to buy fuel to drive to work or go out shopping.

I'd personally prefer a world where legs either natural or electrically powered artificial were the dominant form of transportation. Nevertheless, electric scooters, motorcycles, and automobiles are still much preferable to the stinky fossil fueled machines most of us now drive.

Example of electric legs:

Similar machines have also been built as exo-skeletons for people suffering paralysis.

Ordinary walking (even for those whose natural legs don't work or are lost), solar powered rail and bus and doorstep self driving car transportation, and very comfortable high technology sailing ships... these are my utopia.

[True Blue Door]

19. There's a profound forcing function taking place with electronic power systems.

It started with cellphones, but it's now spreading into everything - we'll have more and more electrical power, stored in smaller and smaller places, and used increasingly efficiently to do more and more things.

Ever since the 19th century, heat engines have competed with electricity. Electricity will win, because it's microscopically manageable while a heat engine is very much a macroscopic system.

[grahamhgreen]

21. I think that's a fantastic option, providing power for vehicles while parked.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Thinner than homeopathic starved-pidgeon soup.

It relies on being able to accurately calculate long-term financial costs from things like climate change, which is obviously impossible.

What they've done, essentially, is taken some numbers that don't tell the story they want (the actual cost per watt of different energy forms) and added some made-up numbers to them to get the answer they want.

Which is not to say, of course that if you added in all the long-term costs they might not turn out to be right.

But presenting this as a scientific study, rather than an exercise in creative fiction, is misleading.

[quadrature]

25. these prices are just made up

FYI, typical prices in the US,
per MWh, on peak,

Winter, $40,
Summer, $80

[GitRDun]

26. Of course it is!

The challenge is dealing with the fact that wind is not a reliable source, and gaining efficiencies in storing energy.

We should be moving subsidies to the cleaner fuels.

That's the challenge!

[valerief]

28. But how many people have to die when they windmine? And what about tornadoes?

Wind is dangerous stuff.



I LOVE windfarms!!!!