Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas’ Senate Bill 20 (2005) mandated 5,880 MW of renewable energy by 2015 and set a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January, thanks in part to government subsidies.
In addition to generous federal assistance — namely a 2 cents/kWh production tax credit and five-year, double-declining balance accelerated depreciation for wind-generating equipment — the state of Texas entices wind developers with a franchise tax exemption to manufacturers, sellers, or installers of wind devices; a corporate deduction from the state’s franchise tax for renewable energy sources; and a 100-percent property tax exemption on the appraised value of an on-site wind power generating device. But even with these federal and state subsidies, electricity from wind is more expensive per kilowatt-hour than that generated by fossil fuels.
ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78 billion to $6.28 billion. ERCOT estimated costs by using as-the-crow-flies distances for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered the absolute (and unlikely) minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of $410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.
Cue “manny” on farm subsidies in 3, 2, …
Off topic — hey Kate — nice job on the Shire Network news interview with Kathy S. — two thumbs up to the both of you!
How many more times do we need proof ? Politicians rarely make things better.
A little something from China, via World Climate Report:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling/#more-321
Let me play advocatus diaboli: does not the state have a mandate to ensure the development of infrastructure that supports national stategic goals? Is not ensuring energy diversity a classic illustration, ranking with establishing the interstate road system, in prudent investment of public monies?
Fire away!
“electricity from wind is more expensive per kilowatt-hour than that generated by fossil fuels.”
Nice blog source btw.
Did you check the price of gas lately???
Some food for thought; gasoline $2.25/litre by 2012
By Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press
CALGARY – It’s going to cost Canadian drivers about $80 to fill the gas tank of an average-sized car or SUV this summer and more than $135 within four years, warn economists from one of Canada’s biggest banks.
National average gasoline prices, now about $1.24 a litre, will top $1.40 a litre this summer and $2.25 by 2012, according to a forecast from CIBC World Markets, which says tighter supplies will drive crude oil over US$150 a barrel by 2010 and to US$225 a barrel in four years.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/soaring_gasoline
Hugger
Tenebris, it very much depends upon what you consider the role of the state to be.
A classical conservative would think the state is to provide security, enforcement of laws and enabling of prosperity. The latter would include construction of publicly useable roads. However, that neither is necessary, nor excludes private toll roads, either.
By that last point, I mean to say that, even if the state decides to perform certain functions, that is no justification for the state to have a monopoly of that function.
So, I personally don’t think that the state should be generating and distributing, nor subsidising, electricity. I might admit, if pushed, to a role for the state in ensuring that electricity is readily available for all players in the economy; after all, a state wants a healthy economy as that empowers the state with tax funds.
Direct subsidies to engourage people to waste energy, or perform any other uneconomical task, are self-defeating, however.
AGW “deniers” might be interested in this resource:
http://icecap.us/index.php
A scientist who was a supporter of AGW is now trying to save his reputation.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
Hugger, gas prices are scary, time to go NUCLEAR huh, minimum CO2, proven technology, safest fuel source around, secure source of uranium.
Cascadian….so true! We should already be well on the way to using almost zero “dirty” fuels to generate our electricity. Unfortunately,people like Huggy killed that idea. So tell me: just who is pandering to “Big Oil”? Seems the greenies don’t want to shut them down!
Oh. And if you want wind power to be profitable,you must have a steady,strong,constant,source. I recommend any Libber/Dipper/Greenie function.
Higher priced oil will make windpower more competetive ? Nope.
Just look at the costs associated with WP;
Energy to smelt the steel, ect.
Energy to make the gearboxes, armatures.
Energy for transport.
Energy for erection.
Energy for maintenance (200 ft cranes)
Energy for transmission line construction.
Windmills, like most everything else, have a lot of energy (oil, coal, neuclear, ect) in them. It is intrinsic.
Fossils go up – so does the cost of WP. WP may be feasible someday, but as the huge subsidies show, not today. Same with biofuels. Same with solar.
Countries that power their economies with “renewables” will become uncompetative in the world. (living standard drops) Same with companies – just ask British Petroleum;
Oil Giant Backs Off Green Push
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/Investing/MichaelBrush/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6605938
Instead of wasting billions on wind, a process that is “known uneconomical in all but the most odd places”, and is horrible for wildlife; those billions should be put up as a sort of X- prize for a source of electricity that’s cheaper than X cents per kilowatt-hour, or a road safe car design that’ll carry 4 people 750 miles with 300kg of cargo and can be “refueled”/”recharged” in under 10 min, using less than X gallons of gas equivalent that costs less than oh, $30K to build in series.
That might, for example, spur research and science into solar cells that really produce power at a reasonable conversion effiency, or better nuclear power designs, or really efficient cars and trucks, or fuel cells that are cost effective.
But no, our genius politicians spend money on … converting food grade grains into alcohol, or dumb welfare ideas, or even on a war.
RW – “I…don’t think that the state should be generating and distributing, nor subsidising, electricity.”
A mere byproduct. The state is subsidizing the establishment of capacity, much in the same way that it subsidizes the establishment of military capacity. Energy is power (all you techies, please forgive me), and in the absense of compelling economic arguments, sometimes the best thing to do is to develop a diverse “weapons capacity” and see what climbs the tech curve.
See the recent announcement on the Canadian front: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newsroom/news/2008/nserc08-nr_e.html
I refine my question: what is the proper role of government in the energy sector?
This is from Previous
Posted by: Woodporter at April 21, 2008 10:16 AM
Boone Pickens, a self made billionaire, is considered one of the sharpest minds in the oil industry. He knows the business of energy as well as anyone, and he is putting billions of dollars into wind energy. What does that say about it?
No wonder Pickens is putting money into this; the rich know how to make a fast buck too. There is absolutely nothing wrong being rich, there is something wrong however when the government is helping you getting richer.
On the other hand, there is a saying: when they are wiling to give you, take it, when they want to beat you, run.
japan is a natural wind farm
sony wind farms’ ?
after all they did let jodi foster into
the machine………
The predictions on the price of oil in future is much as predicting the climate.
For example when the price of gas gets high enough, the demand will drop, it may come that there will be a limit to what a person will pay for liter of gas. People will drive less and walk more, will take a bike instead of driving, will get and drive a motorcycle during the season.
You see, the world is not going to come to an end, unless of course that asteroid hits.
It seems that the assumption is, that everything remains the same and only the price of oil is going to move up and up.
There will be discoveries that will make the locomotion cheaper. Some of the other systems that were discarded will be looked at in the new set of circumstances. There will be improvements.
It may be tough for a period and then it will be even better than now.
Interesting link Oz. I made the comment a few times here on AGW topics that my belief was the rising CO2 was largely caused by ocean warming. The ocean is a huge sink for CO2, and the colder it is, the more CO2 it can hold. An article espousing exactly that notion appears at the link your provided.
Big hats, ok, but in Idaho pigs fly.
pigs can fly and so can obama
life is all about restricions
here we go again
each acordinning to his needs
each according to his means
never surrender
never give up
this web site is genius
If its such a great idea why does the govt. need to subsidize it, especially since being green is hot.
Lev, that’s amusing all right.
It is said that “A fool and his money are soon parted.” T. Boone Pickens has made a life’s work of establishing that as Natural Law, coming just after the three Laws of Thermodynamics in precedence.
He has rarely missed a meal.
His method is to invest in foolishness and fads, drawing just enough income from their rise to be in a commanding position when they crash. He then makes big profits by selling off the wreckage and keeping the usable remnants (there are always some) and adding them to his personal portfolio.
If you are engaged in a venture which is highly innovative and wildly popular, especially among politicians, and T. Boone Pickens appears on your list of stockholders one day, it ought to be considered a Hint. Your correct actions after that differ according to your compression ratio, but betting on the ultimate success of the scheme is not high on the list of good things to do.
Regards,
Ric
Adding to Ron’s point
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/constructing-lot-of-nuclear-power.html
“Nuclear power plants built in the 1970’s used
40 metric tons of steel, and 190 cubic meters of concrete, for each megawatt of average capacity.
Modern wind energy systems, with good wind conditions, take 460 metric tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt.
Modern central-station coal plants take
98 metric tons of steel and 160 cubic meters of concrete — almost double the material needed to build nuclear power plants.
This is due to the massive size of coal plant boilers and pollution control equipment.
Conversely, natural gas combined cycle plants take 3.3 metric tons of steel and 27 cubic meters of concrete — explaining why natural gas is such an attractive fuel, if it is cheap.
We are running out of natural gas.”
Now the site above favors nuclear, but if someone has better numbers, then post them.
The point is that it costs money to create generating capacity. If you only have so much money, what kind of generating capacity do you build? If Wind is not baseload, and requires requires a whack of backup capacity to cover no wind or peaks, and has no economic way to deal with off demand load, is it really the best value for the dollar?
Back a few days ago I posted on another thread saying battery tech was not yet suitable for large scale industrial power storage. I believe Loki mentioned SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage) and suggested I was too negative on the tech.
I’m not down on the technology, but like many other storage technologies it is not fit for purpose as a large capacity off-demand leveling battery. It actually does have uses for leveling voltage spikes for Wind, and is also capable of dumping large amounts of power for short periods of time in the event of brownout. Maybe even to buy enough time to turn on backup Gas or Diesel powered Generators.
Google American Superconductor, this is a company that sells Superconducting systems for other purposes.
VRB (Vanadium Redox Battery) is another interesting technology, but for any technology to win remember that three things must happen: first, you can get the technology to work; two, you demonstrate that is fit for a purpose (it can meet all the requirements to solve a specific problem); and three, you can manufacture it in volume with a good yield, so it can be sold at a price to make a profit.
Most Popular Science / Popular Mechanics / Press Release featured technologies are stuck at step 2 or 3. Lots never make it past step 1.
Finally, regarding Boone Pickens. He is claiming he can get a 25% investment return on wind power, but doesn’t say how. (Everyone else can only get 10% return). I’d listen respectively to what he says, but then again many years back he thought the Alberta Oil Sands would never be commercialized. He has since acknowledged he was wrong on that.
BTW, He’s also got his hand in using Natural Gas to power vehicles (ticker CLNE).
Energy for erection.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 24, 2008 9:45 PM
It takes energy to get an erection too. And to make use of it. Did you calculate the intrinsic nature of that as well? How much oil goes into the production of prophylactics?
From your link which you entitle, Oil Giant Backs Off Green Push;
BP wants to use carbon capture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says spokesman Scott Dean, but first wants Canada to develop a regulatory framework mandating it for all energy companies “so there is a level playing field so that early adopters aren’t penalized.” He says BP is using carbon capture at a project in Algeria.
Dean says BP supports a mandatory system of “cap and trade” for carbon emissions in the U.S. — in which the government sets limits on carbon emissions and allows companies to trade credits for reduced emissions to offer an economic incentive to bring down pollution. “We advocate this because we believe there needs to be a global solution to climate change, and we believe the best way to do that is to put a cap on carbon,” says Dean.
BP also says it plans to reduce its own carbon emissions by 24 million tons per year, which it says is the equivalent of making the entire city of Chicago carbon neutral.
But BP spokesman Neil Chapman says the company still plans to invest $8 billion in its alternative-energy businesses between 2005 and 2015, “more than anyone else in alternative energy.” “We haven’t changed our commitment to the alternative-energy business. We believe we are growing a strong and viable business which offers an excellent growth opportunity and positions us well for the future,” says Chapman.
Chapman says BP will have 450 megawatts of capacity from wind power by the end of this year, up from 30 megawatts in 2006, and that it is adding a wind turbine a day. BP is developing hydrogen power and carbon sequestration projects in California, and it is doubling its investment in solar energy development this year. “These are positive demonstrations of our commitment to the alternative energy business for growing wind, solar and hydrogen power, and carbon sequestration,” said Chapman.
Hugger
Greg – you are one weird dude.
Posted by: Justthinkin at April 24, 2008 9:35 PM
Let me paraphrase an old saying. When you assume you make an ass of u, not me. People like Huggy? That was a giant leap without doubt. I have yet to state an opinion here on the use of Nuclear power generation. I have advocated positions supporting the lesser of evils. Take from that what you will.
As far as shutting down Oil companies, that will be the day that pigs fly.
Huggy
I have always said the AGW is a way of “softening up the greens” so they will endorse nuclear power and biotechnology.
Posted by: bob at April 25, 2008 8:53 AM
Hey bob.. Care to expand on your thoughts on nuclear power and biotechnology?
Hugger
Let me play advocatus diaboli: along with; Tenebris at 8:45 PM who mentions, ** prudent investment of public monies? ** by governments.
Only in contrast with super subsidies for Nuke plants with their forever ongoing costs of re-packing and securing nuclear waste do Texas windy ventures seem practical at all.
In any case, the state normally does not string power lines out to private homes where power profits will not cover the investment.
Extending that basic logic, there are millions of small homes that could provide their own power with today*s technology.
Far wiser to subsidize homeowners who want to be free of the grid than to dump it into endless wind-fed power lines.
Industrial parks located next to heavy-duty power like Kitimat [ Aluminium ]is to it*s power dams, shortens lines and makes good sense.
As Tenebris says . .
** I refine my question: what is the proper role of government in the energy sector?**
10:06 PM
Until the idea of providing our own power and not wasting it becomes popular, our streets will continue to be a mess of wires and frequent short circuits.
Heck, we don*t even use gray water to flush the toilet in this country yet. We have a long way to go.= TG
it’s a bubble buy big oil
bush was wright
Dave in AB:
Re: “VRB (Vanadium Redox Battery) is another interesting technology, but for any technology to win remember that three things must happen: first, you can get the technology to work; two, you demonstrate that is fit for a purpose (it can meet all the requirements to solve a specific problem); and three, you can manufacture it in volume with a good yield, so it can be sold at a price to make a profit.”
VRB Power Systems from Vancouver is building a vaadium redox battery for the Irish Sorne Hill 32 MW wind farm.
“The study, sponsored by Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI), showed that a small island wind farm could see a 17.5% rate of return by using the VRB batteries, a huge growth over the 10% returns at most Irish installations.”
“The study crunches the numbers on how the VRB system could be used at the Sorne Hill wind farm, a 32-megawatt operation to be installed near the northern tip of Ireland. It calculates battery storage will allow Sorne Hill to forecast its output for a 24-hour period with 98% reliability – … the company that plans to build Sorne Hill and had contracted to buy US$6.3-million of VRB batteries, has now raised its contract — which could be finalized in as little as four weeks — to US$9.4-million.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=7d3114f4-38c9-4a35-ade4-e46229b53893