The shoe has dropped. In a straight out economic fight with
nuclear, wind wins. And worse, once paid
off, and they do get paid off, it is practically free.
Worse, they can be all done in
months wherever it make sense and offshore is looking better every day.
The wind industry is mature and
can support a flat out building program that can make it the dominant source of
energy. Recall also that we are entering
the age of superconducting power lines that will shift power across a continent
at no real cost. Thus a shortfall in Hungary will be replaced by power from Spain
easily.
Variable as it may be in terms of
local output, tens of thousands of windmills throughout Europe
only experiences the average effect and that is never variable.
And it all comes down to
cost. Windmills are getting larger and
therefore cheaper in terms of cost to output.
They never need fuel and that hand wave disappears. They become ideal for pension funds to invest
in.
In fact they are perfect. Buy a windmill at age twenty five with forty
years amortization and at sixty five you owe no money and you sell your power
at the prevailing rate. You even get
depreciation to use tax money to pay it off.
In fact, in the years I have spent around investments, this is as
perfect a retirement asset as one could hope to own. Even better it is immune to inflation and the
like.
Wind power cheaper than nuclear, says EU climate chief
Connie Hedegaard says declining cost of offshore wind energy makes it
genuine alternative to crisis-hit nuclear industry
Thanet wind farm off the coast of Ramsgate, Kent. Photograph: Gareth
Fuller/PA
Generating energy from wind turbines
at sea would be cheaper than building new atomic power plants, Europe 's climate chief has said, in the latest challenge
to the crisis-stricken nuclear industry.
Connie
Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, said: "Some people tend
to believe that nuclear is very, very cheap, but offshore wind is cheaper than
nuclear. People should believe that this is very, very cheap."
Offshore wind energy has long been seen as an expensive way of
generating power, costing about two to three times more than erecting turbines
on land, but the expense is likely to come down, while the costs of nuclear
energy are opaque, according to analysis by the European commission.
The nuclear crisis in Japan
has led the UK , France and other countries to tell their
nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading nuclear
contamination. The crisis also prompted the EU's energy commissioner, Günther
Oettinger, to say: "There is talk of an apocalypse, and I think the word
is particularly well chosen."
Hedegaard told the European Wind Energy Association's annual conference
in Brussels that the problems facing nuclear power put renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, back in the
spotlight.
"There are 143 nuclear power plants in Europe
and they are not going to disappear," she said. "But when it comes to
new energy capacity that discussion is likely to be very much influenced by
what is happening in Japan ."
She suggested that the Japanese nuclear incidents, which have not yet been brought under control, would
"automatically" turn attention to renewable power.
However, she was careful to insist that it was up to member states to
decide on their energy mix, as long as they adhered to the Europe-wide targets
of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and generating 20% of energy
from renewable sources by the same date.
Hedegaard published a "roadmap to 2050" this month
that showed the EU was on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% if
current policies are implemented. She said this strengthened the case put by
some member states that the EU's current target of cutting carbon dioxide by
20% by 2020 should be toughened to 30%.
Europe's biggest nuclear operator, EDF of France, insisted that plans
to build a new generation of reactors in Britain
should not be held back by the problems in Japan .
Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy, said:
"While we understand the importance of adjusting the timetable to take
into account the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate report [on the Japanese
crisis], it is also equally important that establishing the framework for new
nuclear should not be subject to undue delay. The events in Japan do not change the need for nuclear in Britain ."
He said meetings this week with local authorities regarding places such
as Hinkley Point in Somerset ,
where EDF wants to build a new reactor, had still been positive.
De Rivaz told the Nuclear Development Forum, including the energy
secretary, Chris Huhne, that there was "local determination to press ahead
with our project, and the strong feeling that whilst we should learn any
lessons we may need to from Japan, we should not delay our progress".
Dear Arclein:
ReplyDeleteI am very disappointed by this posting and your ideas. You are very much mistaken regarding the viability of the wind power systems presently available. You have completely forgotten about maintenance costs and the fact that wind power is NOT a dependable source: far too variable. I have worked on environmental assessment and other projects involving windpower systems and the failure rate on the equipment, including equipment built and installed in the last 4-5 years, is incredible. The costs for land, impact on the land, production and transportation of materials, and many other issues - when compared to 2000-2010 nuclear technology (not the 1970s stuff) - is not a slam-dunk.
you are quite right, but what has and will now change is the loss ratio for energy transfer. The recently announced thin super conducting cable will allow us to use thousands of individual wind towers all across the continent as if they are one plant.
ReplyDeleteThus we can place such towers in the best locales and avoid the obvious problems. Schools of wind towers out on the plains or off new England all look the same to the grid in New York once we are rid of line loss.
This also effectively doubles at least the deliverables from the established infrastructure.
Can you speak to the actual system losses experienced by various types of wind mills due to equipment failure?