New Study Says Wind Turbines are Bad For The Health

[TimG]

Considering that Tesla alone has sold 342 Model S in Canada alone in the first seventh months of 2013. I'd say its a bright future.

ROTFL - It is a car that costs >80K! The only people that can afford to buy are people who already have several cars. Mass adoption requires low costs. EVs without some new battery technology are a tiny niche. Edited August 15, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

the US EIA considered wind industry propaganda?

Then you did not read the caveats that came with the figures. Like I said: the cost of renewables is in the costs imposed on the grid to deal with their variability.

Here is the fine print: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources.

IOW - the IEA is saying the same thing I am saying: that cost of renewables comes their impact on the existing grid.

I already stated that I'd be ok with a deadline.

So 5 years if renewables are still not cost effective then all subsidies should be removed? Edited August 15, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

ROTFL - It is a car that costs >80K! The only people that can afford to buy are people who already have several cars. Mass adoption requires low costs. EVs without some new battery technology are a tiny niche.

And it sold almost as many EVs in seven months as the article mentioned? Imagine that.

By the way, their cheaper model is coming out in a few years at a much lower price point (~35k). Given that it has the range of a mediocre combustion engine while using cheap electricity and garners a rave reviews, I'd say it will sell even better. Damn that "dead" technology.

[FutureCanadian]

Then you did not read the caveats that came with the figures. Like I said: the cost of renewables is in the costs imposed on the grid to deal with their variability.

Here is the fine print: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

IOW - the IEA is saying the same thing I am saying: that cost of renewables comes their impact on the existing grid.

So 5 years if renewables are still not cost effective then all subsidies should be removed?

Did you miss the part where subsidies weren't included? Oops.

[TimG]

Did you miss the part where subsidies weren't included? Oops.

No ooops. Just lack of comprehension on your part:

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations

IOW - the levelized costs are not that important when it comes to evaluating the actual economics of an energy source.

[TimG]

By the way, their cheaper model is coming out in a few years at a much lower price point (~35k). Given that it has the range of a mediocre combustion engine while using cheap electricity and garners a rave reviews, I'd say it will sell even better. Damn that "dead" technology.

I will believe it when I see it.

Lots of people are skeptical:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084684_elon-musk-hangs-up-as-writer-questions-battery-cost-declines

But GM's Bill Wallace is quoted pegging the improvement at 20 percent over "the next few years," with an outside chance that the decline could be as high as 40 percent in five years if new technologies pan out.

Alpert summarizes the likely decline by 2016 at 20 to 30 percent, saying that "few expect" improvement much beyond that range.

Edited August 15, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

No ooops. Just lack of comprehension on your part:

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations

IOW - the levelized costs are not that important when it comes to evaluating the actual economics of an energy source.

On my part?

All that bolded word says is that its more complex that the general figures state. Makes sense given the various levels of difference in potential, regulations and mandates, distance to market for transmission and supply etc.

Must be why they included a minimum and maximum data set as well.

Again: ALL WITHOUT SUBSIDIES INCLUDED which is the main point

[FutureCanadian]

I will believe it when I see it.

Lots of people are skeptical:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084684_elon-musk-hangs-up-as-writer-questions-battery-cost-declines

I'm glad you're getting hung up on the FUTUE of one segment of a growing and diverse market. Were you also one of those people who thought shorting $TSLA was a sure bet eight months ago. Lulz.

EV sales still growing YOY by double-digits, but its so "dead".

[TimG]

Again: ALL WITHOUT SUBSIDIES INCLUDED which is the main point

So what? If it is true then we can eliminate all wind power subsidies today. I would bet that wind power deployments would drop to 0 if that happened because, despite the artificial levelized cost comparisons, wind increases the cost of producing power from other sources. This means higher power bills for consumers and that is all that matters.

EV sales still growing YOY by double-digits, but its so "dead".

2x nothing == nothing. Edited August 15, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

So what? If it is true then we can eliminate all wind power subsidies today. I would bet that wind power deployments would drop to 0 if that happened because, despite the artificial levelized cost comparisons, wind increases the cost of producing power from other sources. This means higher power bills for consumers and that is all that matters.

2x nothing == nothing.

Tell that to any luxury car maker. I guess there in it for "nothing" since there sales are about the same if not usually less than any EV model.

You need to stop thinking so linearly.

[dre]

Nothing will change until someone comes up with a cheaper battery and "economies of scale" are not enough (lithium batteries are already produced on a massive scale). We need a game changing technical breakthough and no one can predict when or even if that will happen.

There wont be any big sea change just incremental change. Theres some new technologies already in development that (like lithium iron sulfide) that can increase the energy density of these batteries by about 60%, and the cost of them is projected to fall about 70% by 2020.

And dont forget that battery and storage technologies have progressed more in the last 15 years then in the 100 years before that. Theres a lot of smart people working on this.

[cybercoma]

Heres a pie chart of global energy subsidies. See those tiny little colored slivers? Thats the portion that Tim goes on and on and on and on about. See the gigantic blue swath? Those are the subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear. In his on going diatribe about energy subsidies Tim somehow forgets to mention the sectors that get almost all the subsidies. Oops!

Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

[GostHacked]

Unlike wind/solar - nuclear is a viable replacement for base load power. I also said *if we want to get off fossil fuels*. as long as we have fossil fuels we don't need nuclear. But what we should be doing is investing heavily in cleaner thorium power but we sit and let the Chinese and Indians do the work because the green movement has succeeded making too many people irrationally fear nuclear.

Thorium was mentioned in a couple other threads here and was not welcomed by some. The benefits are , cannot use spent thorium as weapons, lower radiation after the fact, easier and safer to store after being used, and if a meltdown occurs, seems like it won't be much of a concern, unlike what we see with the perpetual problem that is Fukushima.

[dre]

Thorium was mentioned in a couple other threads here and was not welcomed by some. The benefits are , cannot use spent thorium as weapons, lower radiation after the fact, easier and safer to store after being used, and if a meltdown occurs, seems like it won't be much of a concern, unlike what we see with the perpetual problem that is Fukushima.

Thats all true, but the biggest benefit is that thorium plants could potentially be built and run for much much cheaper because theres no need for a massive containment structure. You could run one in a regular industrial building. Molten salt is also a much better coolent than water, and is pretty much completely impervious to radiation. Theres also 4 times as much thorium on the planet than there is uranium.