wind energy without windmills

Page 4 of 4<1234
December 2nd, 2016 at 4:50:40 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 103
Posts: 6781
Quote: stinkingliberal
Your thinking is old re subsidies, quotas, etc. Those indeed got the industry started more than two decades ago. Now, however, it's being driven simply by being a good investment, as economies of scale have kicked in:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

In order to make a valid operating cost comparison, you have to factor in cost of fuel and cost of carbon emissions. Since Republicans don't believe in carbon emissions, there's a lot of misunderstanding about what the operating cost of a coal plant really is. So if you're a climate change denier, or you discount the effects of air and water pollution, the cost of carbon emissions is zero.

The cost of extracting and transporting fossil fuels also has to be taken into account.

See the "full report" from the link on this website. http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

If you go to table 1b, the cost per Mwh for various energy generation technologies for plants entering service in 2022 (which is about when a plant that starts construction now would go online). Coal is $139.50. Solar is $84.70. (Use the before-tax-credit comparison.)

Furthermore, costs for carbon emissions are not calculated in this report, but they are estimated for coal generation to be approximately $70 per Mwh, making the cost of coal-generated power about 2 1/2 times that of solar. Whether or not you happen to believe in pollution and global warming.


There is no cost to carbon emissions. Just shakedowns for a non existent problem.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
December 2nd, 2016 at 5:01:47 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: AZDuffman
There is no cost to carbon emissions. Just shakedowns for a non existent problem.


Well, I kind of thought that you would retreat into fantasyland as a climate change denier. But look at the figures without taking carbon emissions into account. Solar still is much cheaper.

Also, the chart assumes that fuel for the plant has already been delivered and is readily available. That's the case with solar, but not with coal. The costs of extracting and delivering coal weren't taken into account, and if they were, solar would come out even further ahead.

Facts are a bitch when they contradict beliefs.
June 6th, 2017 at 1:09:51 AM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 12
Posts: 2122
Never liked a design that fry's migratory birds anyway. https://www.wired.com/2016/05/huge-solar-plant-caught-fire-thats-least-problems/
Everyone gets thrown from the plane to maintain altitude
Page 4 of 4<1234