Posted on 08/18/2005 6:46:39 AM PDT by repinwi
Technology helps wind compete head-to-head with fossil fuels
Even with oil prices marching toward $70 a barrel, most alternative energy sources require heavy federal subsidies to allow producers to turn a profit. Wind power, though it still enjoys subsidies, is one of the few that is becoming economically competitive in its own right -- thanks to rising electric power costs in many parts of the world and technological advances in the design and manufacture of wind turbines.
< snip >
Cape Wind is well on its way to building an $800 million, 420-megawatt, 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound offshore Cape Cod, Mass. The company says the project will supply about three-fourths of the power needed for Cape Cod.
< snip >
The Alliance is a well-organized, well-funded group of local residents who have been working to stop the Cape Wind project since it was first proposed.
< snip >
“These are unfounded fears from very wealthy waterfront homeowners who believe that Cape Wind will impact their quality of life,” Opponents also claim offshore wind farms will interfere with fishing, aviation, marine transportation and recreation. Wind energy opponents also cite the high risk of birds being killed by the massive, swiftly turning turbine blades.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The last I heard is that they're going to build the wind farm southeast of Nantucket Island, mostly because of fears of boating and low-level-flight aviation navigation hazards if they build the windfarm between Nantucket Island and the mainland as originally proposed.
Can someone who knows about these things tell me; is this so called wind power less costly and more cost efficient than nuclear?
Bottom line, is the ROI in wind power better than nuclear?
I personally like the idea of a combination nuclear/desalination/electrical generating ocean plant.
thanks in advance
It still takes 12 to 15 years for an "average" modern windmill to produce enough electricity to pay for it's own creation.
Worse, now they're using "exotic" materials to make them which produce a high level of potential environmental damage and problems with toxic disposal.
>The Alliance is a well-organized, well-funded group of local residents who have been working to stop the Cape Wind project since it was first proposed.
Read: that well-known environmentalist, swimming instructor and friend of the whales, Teddy Kennedy
I personally believe alternative energy is needed for national defense. The smaller the installations and the more spread out, the better. The more variety the better.
I think we are at war and will be for at least 50 years.
The capital cost of wind farms is smaller than nuclear, the footprint is smaller than nuclear, there is no fuel or waste, power prices for wind farms are recently being negotiated on fixed price & term basis (no fuel escalation), and the returns are general about 20% afer-tax in the tenth year of operation (when all the production tax credits are taken into consideration).
The drawback is of course that wind energy is intermittent. But then, no one (reasonable) is really suggesting they be a baseload power source. More wind AND nuclear is the way to go.
I have yet to see a good economic analysis of wind power with numbers. Is it because the msn is too stupid to understand or they think we can't understand.
Please cite your source.
Also, at $250-500 million a pop how long do you think it takes a coal, gas, oil or nuclear power plant to "pay" for its own creation.
Lastly if it only takes 12 yars, and they have an average of 20 year life-span that doesn't sound like a terrible investment to me. 8 years of pure profit.
Why can't we use underwater turbines or wheels that turn to make electricity. Kinda like an underwater hydroelectric system that uses major currents to power the turbine??
FALSE! Windmills have a capital cost recovery period of about 3~5 years. And there are NO "exotic" materials in a modern windmill, unless you consider steel and fiberglass "exotic."
Thank you.
Tell me, what do you think of the combination nuclear/desalination/electrical generating plants?
I think it's a great idea, especially in California where there is an ever-increasing demand for both power and fresh water, especially with the construction boom pushing further east of LA into the desert.
Also, check Vestas corp that makes them. Hybrid metals, exotic resins, plastics, carbon fiber composites, not wood and sailcloth any more.
And that's exactly how an investor would figure the payback period of a wind farm.
Also, check Vestas corp that makes them. Hybrid metals, exotic resins, plastics, carbon fiber composites, not wood and sailcloth any more.
Modern wind mills are not left to rust, nor are they buried in the ground after their useful life (estimated to be 20+ years). Most wind farm leases and local permits require dismantling, removal and site reclaimation provisions. And many old wind farms can also be "re-powered" with the newer, more efficient machines, which involves the removal and disposal of older machines.
No forms of modern power generation is 100% bio-degradable, nor without some form of "subsidy," so holding windmills to such a standard is a strawman argument.
read later bump
Maybe someone can answer this question I have about windfarms:
I've seen a number of them, and rarely do I see more than 25% of the windmills in use at a time, even though they're all facing the same direction. Why aren't they all used?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.