Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Wind Energy Not Profitable
Quote | Reply
No profitability without subsidies?


http://calgaryherald.com/...pyard-after-23-years
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like they're so old that maintenance costs are now eating into profit margins. They already got their amortized life out of them, seems unreasonable they expect to push this off as somebody else's (taxpayers) problem.

Same deal here in PA. 3 Mile Island has out-of-control operating costs and they haven't been able to sell electricity in the annual JPM auction for the last 3 years. The news articles never get into the detail, but since nuclear is generally on the lower end of the scale in generation costs, I imagine they are carrying a lot of unrecoverable costs from the cleanup of Unit 2. They are planning to decommission Unit 1 in 2019 unless they get government subsidies.

Brian

Gonna buy a fast car, put on my lead boots, take a long, long drive
I may end up spending all my money, but I'll still be alive
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
No profitability without subsidies?

So this might be a problem that stems from deregulating electrical energy generation and distribution... when all the utility providers are for-profit, there is zero incentive for them to do anything more than add capacity at the lowest possible cost per kW-h, even if something like wind, hydro, or nuclear would have long term benefits.

This is one case where I think European regions do it better - their govermnents (regardless of political orientation) seem to be able to take a long term view on capital infrastructure investment and make the big projects go even when it costs money up front.

I live in Alberta and I like the cheap electricity... but I think it's stupid that for the last three decades or so, the governments have basically pissed away the capital infrastructure as well as the Heritage Foundation trust fund, with absolutely nothing to show for it other than a one-week honeymoon with the electorate everytime they divest another crown asset for ten cents on the dollar. I would rather pay ten percent more for my utility consumables and know that the extra is going towards a twenty year (or longer) view on sustainability.

Less is more.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [Big Endian] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You should come to Ontario and you can help us pay for our overpriced electricity. We also have surplus that we send to America for a big discount.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
No profitability without subsidies?

The article made it seem like part of the problem was a surplus of energy production in that area, not sure if that plays in or not.

If you didn't socialize the cost of pollution, is coal profitable? You don't have to get to climate change, the effects from acid rain were pretty widespread.

Besides, it lets me use this picture.



I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
racin_rusty wrote:
No profitability without subsidies?


The article made it seem like part of the problem was a surplus of energy production in that area, not sure if that plays in or not.

If you didn't socialize the cost of pollution, is coal profitable? You don't have to get to climate change, the effects from acid rain were pretty widespread.

Besides, it lets me use this picture.


And just over the horizon is this, which makes solar power possible:



________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
No profitability without subsidies?

Heh, people in my region like to use that argument against money-losing wind & solar projects compared to our abundant/cheap hydro generation ~ As if decades ago all those giant dam projects like Grand Coulee simply fell out of the sky whole and continue to operate and maintain themselves for free the entire time...

My simple argument is to ask ourselves what kind of energy sources we want/expect to be relying on in another 30 or 50 years from now? If it's not the same shit we were using 30 or 50 years ago, then that takes investments in infrastructure that usually aren't profitable enough in the short run to pencil out, absent the sort of leverage we get from the Feds. Even if you try to point to large private utilities, they're still quasi-public entities in that (at least around here) the large dam/hydro projects still operate under FERC licenses in cooperation w/ NMFS and state F&G agencies because they have a ginormous impact on regional public assets like rivers and fish runs.

It's kind of a chicken-egg problem at a larger scale, but a smaller example is investing in local & regional electric car charging stations so they're common enough to make purchasing EVs a practical choice for more consumers. As the market matures, the cost of entry for more private sector investment goes down and it'll become more profitable and accessible. In that regard, it's not so different from other consumer sectors today that trickled down from massive initial investments in gov't/military technology like satellite communications & GPS.

I'd sure as hell rather subsidize that than continue to prop up 19th-century industries like coal.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't harsh the mellow brah...

If you can't grow it, you gotta mine it

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not really surprising. I'm all for letting the free market decide viability. Screw subsidies.

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Come on, it's a funny picture. Laugh, it's ok. You should smile more, it would make you more attractive.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
len wrote:
You should come to Ontario and you can help us pay for our overpriced electricity.
Define overpriced?

Im betting its still less than half what we pay here in Oz :-(
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
j p o wrote:
racin_rusty wrote:
No profitability without subsidies?


The article made it seem like part of the problem was a surplus of energy production in that area, not sure if that plays in or not.

If you didn't socialize the cost of pollution, is coal profitable? You don't have to get to climate change, the effects from acid rain were pretty widespread.

Besides, it lets me use this picture.



And just over the horizon is this, which makes solar power possible:


Firstly, there's skin cancer - so solar energy is coming from a source that does cause health issues and secondly it's pretty obvious you've never seen an actual coal mine.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
False.

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf


Enjoy your alternative facts though, they'll make you feel good.

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [georged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
WTF does a US study have to do with a Canadian province? Secondly, at what point did I make any statements that contained conclusions? Apparently you're not aware of what question marks are for.
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [georged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From the report you cited...
note F

Quote:

Represents estimated implied midpoint of levelized cost of energy for offshore wind assuming capital cost range of $2.75 - $4.50 / per watt.


I've bolded offshore in particular since there is a significant portion of the North American market that isn't close enough to an ocean for wind to efficient. It also conveniently avoids the cost of land access. In the case of the 22 year old wind farm in question, the land that those wind mills are sitting on is likely privately held by other users (ie. farmers & ranchers). Therefore the wind farm carries additional rental costs & obligations to perform environmental remediation. In Alberta, that requires the return of the land to the exact state that it existed in before the facility was constructed & activity commenced.
Last edited by: racin_rusty: Jun 15, 17 12:20
Quote Reply
Re: Wind Energy Not Profitable [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
My simple argument is to ask ourselves what kind of energy sources we want/expect to be relying on in another 30 or 50 years from now?

Well, the counter-argument is that they did this 20 years ago when they built the wind farm in question. Now they have to look at and evaluate that decision. Did the wind farm generate more or less energy that estimated? Were construction and maintenance costs higher or lower than estimated. Overall, did it make financial sense, and does it make sense to replace the current equipment with modern, more efficient equipment?

Obviously, the company has done that analysis, and replacing the turbines with new ones doesn't make sense without subsidies.

I suspect, that without some major breakthroughs in wind and/or solar, in 30 or 50 years, we will still be relying on coal and (hopefully) nuclear for base load power generation, and have a lot of natural gas plants also. Anyone who commits to being all renewable (wind/solar) in 30 to 50 years, will still be paying higher prices, and probably will be having a hard time meeting demand. (Unless demand drops significantly because industry/business/people leave to go where energy doesn't cost an arm and a leg)
Quote Reply