New Study Says Wind Turbines are Bad For The Health

[FutureCanadian]

VC funding poured into fuel cells in the 90s. In the 2000s solar was all the rage. These technologies have improved but there has been no 'game changing' tech developed that addresses the fundamental economics which makes them great ideas of little practical use outside of special use cases. There is no reason to believe that investment in 'grid scale batteries' will play out any differently.

Fuel cells I guess, but I'd have to say that VC to mainstream investment in solar has yielded some pretty palpable differences.

It is not so complicated. It costs money to produce and distribute power. Increase those costs and power bills go up. Increase those costs too much and voters revolt. Renewables cost a lot more than fossil fuels so no matter what games you play to increase the % of renewables in the public will see higher power bills and will eventually turn on the politicians who raised them. That makes renewables a dodgy investment until the economics makes the viable without subsidies. We are not there yet. We may get there eventually but until then government involvement should be limited to funding R&D into cheaper tech rather than trying to get the existing inadequate tech deployed.

You'll have to forgive me for possibly forcing an American example and understanding to Canadian situations. I don't know enough about the latter so I'm a little confused considering there are multiple areas in the US where sans subsidies renewables are still cheaper than almost every electricity production source except combined cycle natural gas. Is this not true for Canada as well? Edited August 14, 2013 by FutureCanadian

[TimG]

Fuel cells I guess, but I'd have to say that VC to mainstream investment in solar has yielded some pretty palpable differences.

The Chinese came in an used an old technology + subsidies to flood the market with cheap solar panels. Despite this solar power is still much more expensive than the alternatives and solar panel makers are going bankrupt across the globe. No 'game changing' technical development came out the billions spent in subsidies. Incremental improvements on old technologies is all we got.

the US where sans subsidies renewables are still cheaper than almost every electricity production source except combined cycle natural gas.

The cost of renewable power has three components that matter to the consumer:

1) the cost of building, maintaining and fueling the generator

2) the cost of building the power lines to get the power to market.

3) the cost of building and running the fossil fueled generator to provide backup power.

The numbers you see quoted only cover 1) which is incomplete.

Renewables are diffuse power sources so the cost of 2) is always higher than the fossil fuel equivalent.

3) is the killer because it often makes more economic sense to build a high efficiency fossil fuel plant and run 24/7 than to constantly turn it off and on to compensate for renewables.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

The Chinese came in an used an old technology + subsidies to flood the market with cheap solar panels. Despite this solar power is still much more expensive than the alternatives and solar panel makers are going bankrupt across the globe. No 'game changing' technical development came out the billions spent in subsidies. Incremental improvements on old technologies is all we got.

You mean besides the fact that the price per watt of solar has plummeted (and continues to do so)?

I don't think failing companies proves a point. Any product and its corresponding market goes through similar stages with one that includes consolidation of the market. If you're talking about utility-scale solar then yes, it is not really that competitive and relies heavily on location plus subsidy but consumer-level solar is become more and more viable each year.

The cost of renewable power has three components that matter to the consumer:

1) the cost of building, maintaining and fueling the generator

2) the cost of building the power lines to get the power to market.

3) the cost of building and running the fossil fueled generator to provide backup power.

The numbers you see quoted only cover 1) which is incomplete.

Renewables are diffuse power sources so the cost of 2) is always higher than the fossil fuel equivalent.

3) is the killer because it often makes more economic sense to build a high efficiency fossil fuel plant and run 24/7 than to constantly turn it off and on to compensate for renewables.

I understand two for wind and a little for solar, but I don't see how it can be too much different for a plant that isn't located on or near distribution centers either.

I don't really understand three though. All new capacity is greater than previous capacity. How does that gap between capacity potential and actual generation need backup when backup already exists?

[dre]

Renewables are diffuse power sources so the cost of 2) is always higher than the fossil fuel equivalent.

Not really because fossil fuel generation for the most part relies on large centralized plants. Some renewables show potential to produce power at a reasonable price at the point of consumption.

[TimG]

You mean besides the fact that the price per watt of solar has plummeted (and continues to do so)?

The price per watt of a panel is a small part of the cost of solar. Even if it was zero you would still have the cost of installation, inverters and connectivity.

I understand two for wind and a little for solar, but I don't see how it can be too much different for a plant that isn't located on or near distribution centers either.

The point is fossil fuel plants can be built anywhere and are usually built close to the consumer. Wind and solar must be built in locations that are good for them. This is typically much further from the consumer than a power plant. More importantly, it is cheaper to string a single line to single facility that is used 90% than to string a large network of smaller lines that are only carrying power 20% of the time.

I don't really understand three though. All new capacity is greater than previous capacity. How does that gap between capacity potential and actual generation need backup when backup already exists?

If costs money to stop a fossil fuel plant. That is why wind farm operators in Texas have to pay the grid operators to take their power at times (no subsidy if no sale). Also, if you are building a fossil fuel plant it cost a lot more per kWh if you cannot depend on regular sales because you keep getting preempted by wind. This cost needs to be included into the cost of renewables because the consumer ends up paying it - even if it is not directly from the renewable itself. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Some renewables show potential to produce power at a reasonable price at the point of consumption.

Hydro is great but there are only so many locations conducive to hydro generation. People in sunny climates can benefit from solar but they will be the exception as opposed to rule. If the price point for a home battery + solar panel drops enough then we could see a game changing technological shift. But I don't see that happening soon given the battery technology available to us.

But revolutionary change can happen quickly. My only issue is we can't predict when it will happen nor can the government make it happen sooner. In fact, subsidies for production may actually delay the development of new technology because it encourages investment in the uneconomic technology that is available today and takes away the incentive to find the game changing solutions.

If the government is to be involved it should be involved in R&D - it should not be involved in subsidizing commercialization. This is what happened with fracking and it is paying off big time 30 years after the fact.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

The price per watt of a panel is a small part of the cost of solar. Even if it was zero you would still have the cost of installation, inverters and connectivity.

Some installers do it for free. At least here in the US. Not sure about quotes on the other stuff. I doubt it can be that much. Just a few years away from a couple kW rooftop system being about the same as a new air conditioner.

The point is fossil fuel plants can be built anywhere and are usually built close to the consumer. Wind and solar must be built in locations that are good for them. This is typically much further from the consumer than a power plant. More importantly, it is cheaper to string a single line to single facility that is used 90% than to string a large network of smaller lines that are only carrying power 20% of the time.

Fair enough about location on a utility scale. Not sure about 20% of the time. If wind (onshore and offshore is even better) and solar plus hydro, geothermal are all combined, it's pretty much 24/7/365. You would then need overcapacity or storage to meet demand. The former would be easier I think at the moment.

If costs money to stop a fossil fuel plant. That is why wind farm operators in Texas have to pay the grid operators to take their power at times (no subsidy if no sale). Also, if you are building a fossil fuel plant it cost a lot more per kWh if you cannot depend on regular sales because you keep getting preempted by wind. This cost needs to be included into the cost of renewables because the consumer ends up paying it - even if it is not directly from the renewable itself.

So can we include externalities into the cost of fossil fuels? :-)

This situation only seems to be a problem if the generation source isn't utility-owned, no?

[dre]

Hydro is great but there are only so many locations conducive to hydro generation. People in sunny climates can benefit from solar but they will be the exception as opposed to rule. If the price point for a home battery + solar panel drops enough then we could see a game changing technological shift. But I don't see that happening soon given the battery technology available to us.

But revolutionary change can happen quickly. My only issue is we can't predict when it will happen nor can the government make it happen sooner. In fact, subsidies for production may actually delay the development of new technology because it encourages investment in the uneconomic technology that is available today and takes away the incentive to find the game changing solutions.

If the government is to be involved it should be involved in R&D - it should not be involved in subsidizing commercialization. This is what happened with fracking and it is paying off big time 30 years after the fact.

Subsidizing pilot projects IS r&d. And the government has painted itself into a corner by subsidizing virtually all forms of energy.

THey should stop, and force energy companies to internize their costs. But its too late for that.

[TimG]

Some installers do it for free.

Nobody works for free. Here is some hard info on the costs of installating solar:

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/how-fast-are-the-costs-of-solar-really-coming-down/

That is because two-thirds or more of the installed cost of residential solar systems are soft costs, unrelated to the cost of the modules. Owing to costs related to permitting, installation, supply chains, mounts, inverters, and other non-module costs, solar PV systems cost as much as two to three times more in other countries than they do in Germany. In the United States, the installed costs of residential solar remain about $5000/kW

A 1kW solar installation will produce about 3-4kWh a day. That means it will take close to 20 years to simply break even on the cost of panels. Reducing the cost of the panels is not going to change the soft costs much.

So can we include externalities into the cost of fossil fuels? :-)

It is not an externality - it is direct cost that must be paid for by consumers.

This situation only seems to be a problem if the generation source isn't utility-owned, no?

It really makes no difference if the utility owns the generation capacity because they want to maximize their returns. The reality is they would get better returns with gas alone than with a mix. This will be true as long as there is no economically viable large scale mechanism to store grid power. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Subsidizing pilot projects IS r&d.

Pilot projects have a clearly limited scope and objectives. Open ended subsidies designed to increase the installed capacity of renewables are NOT pilot projects - they are subsidies for commercialization of a technology. The government should not be involved in this. R&D and pilot projects is where it belongs. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

Pilot projects have a clearly limited scope and objectives. Open ended subsidies designed to increase the installed capacity of renewables are NOT pilot projects - they are subsidies for commercialization of a technology. The government should not be involved in this.

They are involved in this across the board. Government action around energy is massive in terms of direct subsidies, and governent action aimed at energy supply is one of the biggest things they do.

They are commited to this approach and have been for a century, and it isnt going to change.

[FutureCanadian]

Nobody works for free. Here is some hard info on the costs of installating solar.

It is if you lease. It's easier to look at if you just measure costs as price plus installation into an installed cost.

A 1kW solar installation will produce about 3-4kWh a day. That means it will take close to 20 years to simply break even on the cost of panels. Reducing the cost of the panels is not going to change the soft costs much.

I've seen installed costs as low as $3.50/watt. Any drop in price will equate to a quicker ROI.

It is not an externality - it is direct cost that must be paid for by consumers.

What about indirect costs to consumers that aren't included into fossil fuels? Talk about market distortion. :-)

It really makes no difference if the utility owns the generation capacity because they want to maximize their returns. The reality is they would get better returns with gas alone than with a mix. This will be true as long as there is no large scale mechanism to store grid power.

If its a part of the utility's own mix and that utility is a legal monopoly, then its not really as controversial from a "screwing the production guy" as the other situation assumes.

I don't think a mix is impossible nor impractical if its properly implemented. Like I said earlier, it is entirely possible to not have intermittency if there is the proper mix and proper capacity. Would it be necessarily cheaper? I can't say exactly. That's really another discussion in its own right about the philosophy of democratic determination in relation to municipal-owned or legally allowed utility monopolization etc.

[TimG]

I've seen installed costs as low as $3.50/watt. Any drop in price will equate to a quicker ROI.

I used 20 cents/kWh in my calculation - the average cost of power is 12/kWh and using that will increase the payback period. I also doubt the 3.5/kWh is an unsubsidized cost. The bottom line is the soft costs of installing solar panels are more important than the cost of the panels themselves and there is no reason to believe they are going to drop further.

What about indirect costs to consumers that aren't included into fossil fuels? Talk about market distortion.

People care about their power bills. If they know that their bills are being artificially inflated because of renewable subsidies they will stop supporting these subsidies.

Would it be necessarily cheaper? I can't say exactly.

If you are willing to pay enough money anything is possible. The question is do we get enough value from renewables to justify the cost and I do not think we do with the technology available today. There will likely be better technology in the future but we cannot know when that will be. Until then we have to use the power that is economically viable without subsidies today and that is fossil fuels. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

People who support government spending on useless "green" energy or people who support the NIMBYs that oppose infrastructure projects should pay double. It is only fair because those are the people that are making the bills go up.

The government should support innovation. Countries whose governments don't spend money on innovation, even when they know they won't get anything back in return, fall behind. Your crusade against "wasteful spending" on innovation would have us relying on others for technological advances.

[GostHacked]

How many batteries will it take to run a city - or even a small town?......the latest automobile technology weighs well over a hundred pounds and runs one car for about an hour at best......and how do you dispose of thousands upon thousands of pounds of batteries once they've reached their lifespan? And why would we want to do that......?

Kind of the same way we use UPS batteries to keep servers online when the power goes out. It may be prudent to develope a better battery, as it could be utilized on a power grid.

Also, ever replace an electric transformer on a pole? Those things are custom built and take some time to replace, if a few go out, you are going to struggle to keep the electricity flowing.

But for the batteries, you do something drastic for them. You plan for it. Batteries can be recycled and even reconditioned to near 100% capacity. Something I do every day at work for the mobile RF technology that we use here at the warehouse.

A nice mesh grid would be great. Smaller solutions, implement solar into new high rises and even new home construction. Once you have a nice mesh the effects are greatly reduced if the main power happens to go out.

Centralization only works in favour of a power company that want's to charge you for the electric consumption. Decentralization means more reliability, and using more solar/win combos can reduce the reliance on large power generating stations that are 100kms away.

It will need a huge mentalilty and societal shift of the people as well as companies that provide power. Centralization is an all eggs in one basket scenario. And with the anniversary of the black out, de-integration of power systems on the country and provice/state level would help keep things stable.

[TimG]

The government should support innovation.

So? Why do you get to decide what is "innovation" and what is wasteful spending? It takes more than a label slapped on something to make it "innovation". If you read my other posts you would see that I clearly indicated that government has a role to play funding R&D. However, trying to commercialize a technology that is not ready is wasteful and can actually hinder innovation because it encourages crony capitalism and over investment in ineffective technology.

[cybercoma]

I said the government should support innovation. Nowhere did I say I should decide.

[GostHacked]

So? Why do you get to decide what is "innovation" and what is wasteful spending? It takes more than a label slapped on something to make it "innovation". If you read my other posts you would see that I clearly indicated that government has a role to play funding R&D. However, trying to commercialize a technology that is not ready is wasteful and can actually hinder innovation because it encourages crony capitalism and over investment in ineffective technology.

Some innovations will fail, and some will be succesful. If we do not at least try, then what is the point? The country will loose intellectual value if we don't encourage innovation.

The problem is that a lot of politics get in the way of something that could be quite successful and beneficial to us on the whole. Egos and the like get in the way and in some cases an inferior product is selected because of the stupid politics and ego.

So government should support innovation, but should also let the market/people decide which innovation is better or more suitable for the task.

[TimG]

The country will loose intellectual value if we don't encourage innovation.

Bribing corporations to install uneconomic technology with sweet heart contracts is NOT innovation. It is crony capitalism. Innovation is about building new technology.

So government should support innovation, but should also let the market/people decide which innovation is better or more suitable for the task.

Except the government does not do this.

[dre]

Kind of the same way we use UPS batteries to keep servers online when the power goes out. It may be prudent to develope a better battery, as it could be utilized on a power grid.

Also, ever replace an electric transformer on a pole? Those things are custom built and take some time to replace, if a few go out, you are going to struggle to keep the electricity flowing.

But for the batteries, you do something drastic for them. You plan for it. Batteries can be recycled and even reconditioned to near 100% capacity. Something I do every day at work for the mobile RF technology that we use here at the warehouse.

A nice mesh grid would be great. Smaller solutions, implement solar into new high rises and even new home construction. Once you have a nice mesh the effects are greatly reduced if the main power happens to go out.

Centralization only works in favour of a power company that want's to charge you for the electric consumption. Decentralization means more reliability, and using more solar/win combos can reduce the reliance on large power generating stations that are 100kms away.

It will need a huge mentalilty and societal shift of the people as well as companies that provide power. Centralization is an all eggs in one basket scenario. And with the anniversary of the black out, de-integration of power systems on the country and provice/state level would help keep things stable.

Right now compressed air is a lot more efficent than batteries.

But I think the game changer will be electric cars... Hundreds of thousands of electric cars plugged into the grid will provide a whole lot of storage.

[GostHacked]

Bribing corporations to install uneconomic technology with sweet heart contracts is NOT innovation. It is crony capitalism. Innovation is about building new technology.

It's also about new ways to use existing technologies.

Except the government does not do this.

Well that is what dre was hinting at. Of course they do not do this.

[GostHacked]

Right now compressed air is a lot more efficent than batteries.

But I think the game changer will be electric cars... Hundreds of thousands of electric cars plugged into the grid will provide a whole lot of storage.

Yes but you need to charge them first. Electric cars will put more strain on the current grid if not improved.

[FutureCanadian]

I used 20 cents/kWh in my calculation - the average cost of power is 12/kWh and using that will increase the payback period. I also doubt the 3.5/kWh is an unsubsidized cost. The bottom line is the soft costs of installing solar panels are more important than the cost of the panels themselves and there is no reason to believe they are going to drop further.

People care about their power bills. If they know that their bills are being artificially inflated because of renewable subsidies they will stop supporting these subsidies.

If you are willing to pay enough money anything is possible. The question is do we get enough value from renewables to justify the cost and I do not think we do with the technology available today. There will likely be better technology in the future but we cannot know when that will be. Until then we have to use the power that is economically viable without subsidies today and that is fossil fuels.

Ignore that last quote, I'm getting a little muddled in all these different price points.

I still think it is patently absurd to think that the soft costs won't come down at all. The article you link even said that it occurred in Germany. Any drop in costs, whether it be module or soft, equates to ROI reaching a lower limit.

I also think its unfortunate that people would rather pay cheaper electricty up front without understanding true costs. I mean it is logical.

I don't personally think the technology is that far away and even if we disagree philosophically about the role of government, it could still be less "intrusive" in the market but still help by doing R&D (e.g. ARPA-E in the US), improve permitting process, use government rooftop space to lease out and at least marginally reduce costs for us taxpayers.

[dre]

Yes but you need to charge them first. Electric cars will put more strain on the current grid if not improved.

Sure but you can charge them mostly with off-peak power, and draw them down a bit or throttle charging rates to smooth over spikes in demand. If everyone owned a plugin electric car that would be like having 50kw of storage at each house. These vehicles would become part of the grid Theyre calling it V2G.

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which plug-in electric vehicles, such as electric cars (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging rate.

[dre]

Ignore that last quote, I'm getting a little muddled in all these different price points.

I still think it is patently absurd to think that the soft costs won't come down at all. The article you link even said that it occurred in Germany. Any drop in costs, whether it be module or soft, equates to ROI reaching a lower limit.

I also think its unfortunate that people would rather pay cheaper electricty up front without understanding true costs. I mean it is logical.

I don't personally think the technology is that far away and even if we disagree philosophically about the role of government, it could still be less "intrusive" in the market but still help by doing R&D (e.g. ARPA-E in the US), improve permitting process, use government rooftop space to lease out and at least marginally reduce costs for us taxpayers.

The problem is that the biggest cost reductions come from scale of production, not just research. Thats why early implementation is considered part of the R&D process. For the cost of things like solar panels to come down you have invest in things like huge factories, or encourage the private sector to do so by subsidizing early production. This is part of the r&d process. Its the "d" part.

Edited August 14, 2013 by dre