Posted on 11/17/2012 10:36:55 AM PST by DTogo
...Here are some other PTC tidbits that those smooth-talking AWEA hucksters won’t be mentioning…
A one year extension of the PTC will cost taxpayers over $12 Billion — how is that a good idea?
All that $12+ Billion will increase our deficit — how is that a good idea?
Almost all of that $12+ Billion will be borrowed from China — how is that a good idea?
A large part of that $12+ Billion will go to foreign conglomerates — how is that a good idea?
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Unless a specialized crane is required to change out a major component, the 80m elevation of most turbines (hub height) plays little part in their operating cost - most are operated remotely by computer.
I forgot to say that the offshore barrier islands on the Gulf of Mexico in south Texas are mostly state and national wildlife refuges, including the one where endangered whooping cranes go to nest and such. Those refuges are only open part of the year, when nothing is nesting or breeding, but they bring in a ton of tourist money-nope, very bad place for turbines that butcher birds...
Windmills have their place as history has shown. Remote water pumping on large ranches is quite effective. Remote off the grid electric generation for storage batteries can be effective also. Efficient inverters are needed to make the whole system efficient but the systems are expensive.
The "contractual rate" the utilities pay is higher than the rate they would pay for conventionally generated power -- from their own plants or others. "Wind energy" is innately expensive. The utilities pay a premium price for it, ergo so do you.
Those idiots who choose to pay a further premium for "environmentally-friendly wind energy" from the likes of the Wyly Brothers' Green Mountain Energy are even dumber.
Utilities must have back up and reserve generation anyway, for peak demand periods and/or when other plants are taken offline for scheduled maintenance.
Yes. But only "wind energy" (and solar) require 100% back-up! And, since the utilities have to build the cost of such facilities into their rate base, we're paying for them even when the windmills are turning.
The wind may be "free", compared to coal or gas fuel, but the prohibitive cost of "harnessing" the wind eliminates whatever cost advantage it may have possessed.
"Wind energy" makes every bit as much sense as automobile fuel from corn.
In the absence of government subsidy and/or mandate, it would never happen!
You got that right! Also, these turbines can only stand
wind up to about 50 mph after that they are supposed to turn themselves off or they will tear themselves apart.
Also, their gearboxes are notoriously bad.
Show me ONE such storage facility for power using pumps, tanks, and generators. You can't. It doesn't make economic sense. That's why MILLIONS of dollars of infrastructure has been built to do peak demand management.
There's a world of difference between what is feasible from an engineering or physics perspective, and what is feasible economically.
in the best world of federal taxation, there would be no special credits, exemptions, deductions or exclusions, in a general way or to specific types of energy producers - none
given that that is not the tax universe we have, as many of such special credits, exemptions, deductions and exclusions as possible she be the most economically efficient use of such tax items
the only way to measure them in any way that is applicable to the entire energy sector is an a basis of nergy production in energy-equivalent units, treating them all if you will as a “subsidy”, and NOT on the basis of a simple raw number of revenue forefeited by a tax item
and when you measures susbidies via the tax code and directly, in all areas of the energy production sector of the economy, and you do so the basis of equivalent units of energy produced, wind and solar are extravagent “subsidies” (on a per unit of energy produced) than either fossil fuels or nuclear
this fact is a direct testament to how much less economically efficient they are in the first place - even with receiving a much greater portion of costs per energy produced back in “subsidies”; the market growth is too slow, because even the “subsidies” don’t make them as economically competitive as the alternatives
LOL! You ever been up an antenna tower, way up where the wind is threatening to blow your a$$ off into the wild blue yonder? I have. It's difficult, and only certain people will do it, and they want to be paid HANDSOMELY.
You can't replace a wind turbine transmission "remotely by computer". No maintenance of these turbines is done without somebody climbing up there.
In Colorado last year, they had a storm, and it got so cold that the hydraulic fluid got so sluggish that stuff broke in the transmission. You think somebody's going to climb up there in the winter and fix it? Heck, no! How will they get there? Road is snowed over, and there's no place to land a helicopter. So now, you lose capacity until spring.
These things are a maintenance NIGHTMARE.
Exactly right. This is another way of saying they generate NO baseload power, since you cannot count on them being available 24/7/365 like coal, nuke, hydro or natural gas.
But wait, there's more! Solar and wind can't be relied on for demand response, either: you don't know if they can generate enough at the time of the demand. (Solar is usually better about this than wind.)
So, it's just "green" unicorn fart power that nobody can count on. Without the subsidies, every last grid-tied wind project would be torn down or abandoned.
One thing hydro does that no other energy source can do is create property value. Lakefront property sells for considerably more than swampland. My little town and the dam came into existence at the same time and the town grew as a result of the dam. In fact, my house sits on the site where the icehouse once was. The ice house wouldn’t have been here without the lake.
The dam was originally built to mill grain and was later converted to electricity until it was decommissioned in the 50s.
My statement: "most are operated remotely by computer." Obviously to "maintain" or service them requires climbing up to the nacelle. The average estimated O&M cost of most modern turbines is $50-60K/year (per turbine).
Many new wind farms in the Midwest, where wind is strong and consistent, can (and do!) sell their energy under a 20-year contract for $30-35/MWh flat. No new gas or coal-fired coal plant can do that, without a long-term fuel hedge that would require a much higher energy sale price to yield the same return.
In the absence of government subsidy and/or mandate, it would never happen!
Many other things would also not have happened.
Individually, coal, nuke, hydro or natural gas do NOT run 24/7/365 - more like 24/7/340. They rely on each other to run during peak load or scheduled maintenance, just as wind would rely on one of the other forms of generation during low wind periods. And during high wind periods, if wind energy is cheaper than a natural gas peaker (most wind is), why not take the wind energy?
Could they do that without a federal subsidy...???
The height of these things IS a very significant driver in the MAINTENANCE of these things. You need specially trained personnel, the time it takes to climb and get parts and tools up to these things and the remoteness of the site. Also, there is no economy of scale with wind farms. You need hundreds of these units to just to equal the output of a coal or nuke plant, which usually have just a couple of units.
One maintenance item reported by a farmer friend is a result of the fact that the blades get hit by lightning. The necessary repairs are done by person going up to the blade on a rope system while the whole prop is held stable by two other individuals with ropes. After the fiberglass repair sets up, the repair guy goes up again to sand it down.
Where does CHINA get any money to LOAN us?
How is it that it seems EVERY nation is in debt to someone else?
So?
It doesn't hurt that utility one bit; for YOU have to pay the passed on cost!
I say TAX the hell out of utilities!!!
That is a cost that won't be passed on to you!
(I am the National press secretary and I approve this message)
It's a proven, scientific fact that water power is going downhill.
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.