The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Health and economics will unravel wind power > Comments

Health and economics will unravel wind power : Comments

By Max Rheese, published 5/7/2011

Being too expensive isn't the only problem for wind power - damaging the health of neighbours is another.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Spindoc has figures that don,t mean a thing. It sounds like one wind mill in one place. Is this health, worries universal around the world or an AU thing. If you can't get a wind mill in the area , how will you ever get a nuclear power station here. Move with the times and problem at hand, you just might get over it.
Posted by a597, Friday, 8 July 2011 5:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

Large scale thermal is marginal at Euro0.32/kWhr or about Aus50c and wind is about 20c presently (with large scale efficiency down to 15c), compared to coal at between 2c and 4c, and nuclear at 10c.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 8 July 2011 10:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

I seem to be above your prices for everything bar solar thermal. I said it was $0.20 per KW/hr. That was meant to be conservative. It was based on a vague recollection of it being under 0.15 per KW/hr. Now you've prodded me I've looked it up:

http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/60684/solarreserve-worth-its-salt

In summary:

- It is a 110 MW plant.
- They received $737M in loan guarantees.
- They are contracted to sell power at US$0.135 per KW/hr in year 1
- rising by 1% per year for 25 years.
- the 1% annual rise is looks to be below the inflation rate.

Yes, it is above your figure for nuclear. But it doesn't taken too many Fukushima's and Yucca Mountains to make it look attractive.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 8 July 2011 11:06:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

However, they are heavily subsidised, and otherwise could not achieve that price. The Euro 0.32 is for its sister plant in Spain, that is not subsidised other than it gets a guaranteed price AU 50c /kWhr that is commensurate with a small profit.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 9 July 2011 5:44:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shadow Minister,

I went looking harder for subsidies. They only thing I could find beyond the the loan guarantee is a federal 30% tax credit that might be applicable, which of course only applies if they make a profit.

As you can see from the URL, this newsletter is published for and by people of your ilk:

http://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/ProductsServices/Products/electricpowerdaily.pdf

It lists the investors in the firm. They look like people investing in a cause, so you could argue they are being subsidised by private money. But even so I don't think they are planing to wear a loss; just willing to forge profits for now. The $0.50 to $0.135 drop might be a hint on why.

If you look at that newsletter it isn't the only plant they are building either. The next one is a 150 MW plant:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1241

Even at $0.135 it's dammed expensive compared to coal of course, which hints at another subsidy. I think that would be the California law requiring electricity companies to have 3% renewable.

So while there are a range of things driving this, I can't find anything like the $0.36/KW.hr subsidy you suggest. Also, notice the $135/MW.hr figure is in line with the Wikipedia page I gave. It quotes a figure of $85/MW.hr from, drum roll ... a report written by our good friend and nuclear proponent Ziggy Switkowski. I assume that isn't for solar storage.

It looks to me the most likely reason for the price drop is them learning how do to it, and economies of scale. Ziggy has a graph in his report illustrating the effect. It's quite dramatic.

As I've argued with you before, the fact that nuclear can't build lots of small, cheap commercial plants to get itself moving down the cost / learning curve is a huge disadvantage. It will costs billions of dollars to build the first GEN IV plant, and it may not work. That is an enormous risk. So it keeps getting delayed, and meanwhile these smaller, nimbler technologies keep nibbling away at their costs.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 9 July 2011 10:39:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

Look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_Tariff#Spain

These tariffs are based on costs. The feed in cost are about euro 30c/kWhr

As for the link you provided, the $737m low interest loan guarantee is a huge subsidy for starters, and the 110MW capacity is peak capacity not average, which means they typically only have to cover running costs plus a little for capital repayment.

If the same nature of loan guarantees were given for nuclear, the cost would rival coal or beat it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 9 July 2011 4:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy