Wind Power Becoming Cheaper Than Conventional Power

Unfortunetly the Green Choise program is not available to anyone. To subscribe applicants send in a postcard and a small number of postcards get drawn in a lottery.

Hopefully soon Austin Energy can supply enough green energy for the rest of us.

It is too bad supply is an issue (as Orion points out), but if the price is cheaper than conventional electrical generation, that should push up demand and drive the installation of more wind-generating capacity. Expensive energy prices make alternatives a better value and more people should get into the market. Come on capitalism, help us get some alternative energy sources going!

The house I live in is part of the inter-cooperative council (ICC) in Austin and all the houses are on the GreenChoice program. So I guess if you want to live in a house that is mostly powered by green energy and minimizes your impact by sharing resources ICC is for you. Heck we even have a vegan house less than two blocks away from a vegan fire station. How green is that?

I sent in my postcard, keeping my fingers crossed on getting picked. More energy supply would definitely be nice, but I wonder if it would be at the old contract price, or a newer higher contract price.

Good piece on NPR this morning concerning the issue of placement of turbines, noise, un-sightly, bird kills, etc. These are major obsticles to overcome.

"concerning the issue of placement of turbines, noise, un-sightly, bird kills, etc. These are major obsticles to overcome."

Not so much.

Modern wind turbines have blades with a span similar to a large modern airliner. Even in high wind, the blades turn very slowly (an electronically controlled transmission modules the spinning resistance), without much noise, and certainly without killing birds (unlike these old *very small* wind turbines that were stupidly put in large numbers right in the migratory path of birds somewhere in the US a while back -- that's where that "bird killing" thing started, AFAIK, and it really got out of hand).

As for the sight, it's a matter of taste, I suppose. Personally, I like them, and would certainly prefer seeing them than coal plants.

I could get as animated on this subject as I have with diesels. But, I'll just post this link for anyone who is convinced that turbines are a major threat to birds:

http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=31542

Aesthetics? Well, if you love coal plants, miles long freight trains filled with coal, open pit mines, mercury seeping in to almost everything, and the typical nuke, then yea, turbines are just god-awful. ;)

100% of our household electricity comes from wind. Anyone else?

From reading the article, the fact that wind energy is now cheaper then natural gas has very little to do with a reduction in the cost of wind power generation and more to do with a reliance on natural gas generation and high natural gas commodity prices.

Gas and coal prices fluctuate greatly. Wind and Water power have fairly constant costs as they have no consumables cost and generally predictable maintenance costs.

To aesthetics:

http://www.turby.nl/

There are many different types of turbine blades. The one from the above link is supposed to more efficient than most.

I really wish the bird-killing rumor would go away. Think about where you put the turbine. And think about what conventional energy sources are doing to those birds.

Reminds me of someone I knew in college who insisted that putting up lots of windmills would slow the rotation of the Earth.

Obviously it won't actually do that, but it seems to me that massive amounts of windmills could certainly affect weather patterns. By imparting energy to the turbines the wind is slowing down and probably changing direction. You have to wonder if there could be appreciable climate changes as a result of this.

what about solar generated sources?

"but it seems to me that massive amounts of windmills could certainly affect weather patterns. By imparting energy to the turbines the wind is slowing down and probably changing direction. You have to wonder if there could be appreciable climate changes as a result of this."

Josh, we have to remember that there are lots of other things that are "in the way" of wind; trees, mountains and irregular terrain, buildings, etc.

Wind turbines, even in great number, would be pretty insignificant. Certainly have less of an impact on climate than burning fossil fuels, in any case.

Unfortunately I don't live in an area where I can subscribe to an alternative energy program, but finally buckled to my conscience and bought green tags to offset my lifestyle. For those who can afford it, it's an interesting concept. Not saying it'll solve all problems by a long shot, but it's still helpful. For those who can't afford, even more good is probably achieved by reduce and reuse...

Wind cheaper? Ha!. This is more propoganda from GE and other large corps who are trying to increase your electricity costs. More expensive electricity means more money for big industry.

The baseline power in the USA always costs less than 6 cents/kwh. Wind, after all tax incentives, etc comes in at about 20 cents. How, then, could they publish this 'story'? Ans: There are days when Natural gas (which is used for peak demand only) rises above 10 cents, which is some artificial price that wind companies say they make wind energy for. Wind power, due to its intermittent nature, is of lower quality than baseline power, and hence is only worth about 2 - 3 cents.

The only way to see if wind really works, and it might, is to STOP ALL TAX DOLLARS from going to wind. Right now taxpayers shell out about $300,000 per year per turbine in subsidies.

North Americans use more electricity than anyone else. The real answer is a commitment to conservation. If the money wasted on wind was put into conservation programs, we could actually reduce the amount of electricity that the USA uses. Air conditioning uses a LOT of electricity. Switching to ground source cooling would save so much power that this step alone would be noticed. It is not in the power industries interests to drive down demand. Wind is all about supposedly increasing supply. That is the wrong side of the equation.

So Tom, you'd rather we continued to use limited and dirty resources? Sounds to me like you have some vested interest in either coal or gas. Luckily, just about everyone here will see you as being, well... a bit loony or possessing an ulterior motive. Either way, I'm glad that the current momentum will marginalize people like you. :D

BTW, I'm all for conservation, but not as a substitution for implementing renewable and non-polluting alternatives.

In Massachussets, Mass Electric customers can choose to get their power green for about $0.02 more per kw. So we're 100% green for electricity

GreenChoice is not the only option for pollution free energy in Austin. You can use Green Mountaina Energy. I didn't get the 100% wind option but it is available for a little extra.

"Wind, after all tax incentives, etc comes in at about 20 cents."

You are WAY off the mark.

Please provide us a link to where you got that figure.

"From reading the article, the fact that wind energy is now cheaper then natural gas has very little to do with a reduction in the cost of wind power generation and more to do with a reliance on natural gas generation and high natural gas commodity prices."
That's completely incorrect. The cost of producing windpower has decreased from
30-40 Cents per kWh in the early 1990's to around 4-7 cents today. The costs are dependent, of course, on how good the winds are a given site. The costs of windpower have been driven down by increases in scale, both of the turbines and the sites, and better rotor blade and
generator technology. Even if thecosts of windpower remain
constant in the future, thos cost of combustable fuels is not likely to do so, probably increasing the economic advantages of windpower.

"Good piece on NPR this morning concerning the issue of placement of turbines, noise, un-sightly, bird kills, etc. These are major obsticles to overcome."

I doubt that a piece that claims significant bird kills and noisty operation can be characterized a a good one, since those objections have been laid to rest for quite some time. Unsightly is an inaccurate description of a wind turbine- they are as good looking as any modern work of sculptor, and surveys show that those who actually have seen them by and large think the same thing. NPR should
do a least mediocre research before regurgitating articles written years ago when these issues first surfaced. Well, what do you expect - NPR is a beaurocratic organization that
has no performance requirements.

"Good piece on NPR this morning concerning the issue of placement of turbines, noise, un-sightly, bird kills, etc. These are major obsticles [sic] to overcome."

Sound: According to the U.S. Department of Energy publication Wind Energy Myths: "[Myth #10:] Wind turbines are noisy. [Fact:] Modern wind turbines produce very little noise. The turbine blades produce a whooshing sound as they encounter turbulence in the air, but this noise tends to be masked by the background noise of the blowing wind. An operating modern wind farm at a distance of 750 feet to 1000 feet is no more noisy than a kitchen refrigerator."

Bird Kills: From the same source: "[Myth #9:] Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious environmental impacts. [Fact:] Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (less than 1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health."

"The baseline power in the USA always costs less than 6 cents/kwh. Wind, after all tax incentives, etc comes in at about 20 cents. How, then, could they publish this 'story'?"

No, this is not true. The cost of electricity from new power plants (coal, natural gas, or wind) is roughly the same, with coal having a slight edge. As others have noted here, though, the cost of wind-generated electricity is stable once a wind farm is built, and so it is not affected by fluctuations in fuel prices. Not sure where the idea of 20 cents/kilowatt-hour comes from, but it is non-factual. We currently cite a range of 5.5-9.5 cents/kWh. With the federal production tax credit, the cost drops to 3-7 cents/kWh.

Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
www.ifnotwind.org

Kerry B: You might want to check out the story before attacking it. NPR is no friend of progressive issues, but the report seemed pretty fair to me.

After receiving a notice from my local power company that I could opt into their "wind" program, I decided to do some research into it. After all, I wanted to know why, if I opt in, I would be paying an extra 25 cents/day for it. Thus far, I have read that this type of energy actually costs less than conventional power. So why would I pay 25 cents more a day for wind power? It amazes me how the middle class, who have to conserve every penny to attempt to get ahead of the cost of housing, food, clothing, etc., are yet again placed in a position of making a non-ecological choice by virtue of price gouging for "new" technology (not so "new" when European countries have been using this type of power for centuries). It's the same scenario as with ecological cars that conserve fuel resources, but cost twice as much as conventional autos to buy (and we can't wait 2 to 3 years for the savings in fuel to break even). Wallets being strained as they are, I won't be forking over an additional 25 cents a day for wind power anytime soon.

Thus far, I have read that this type of energy actually costs less than conventional power. So why would I pay 25 cents more a day for wind power?

It doesn't cost less, but it doesn't cost much more, either. Two complicating factors: (1) utilities are free to set their own premium rates for customers who want to specify green power--sometimes those rates reflect its cost, but not always; and (2) new wind plants may be competing with the cost of electricity from older coal or nuclear plants for which the cost of construction was paid off long ago. That cost may be very low--2 or 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Old wind plants also generate very cheaply, but there aren't that many of them in place as yet.

It amazes me how the middle class, who have to conserve every penny to attempt to get ahead of the cost of housing, food, clothing, etc., are yet again placed in a position of making a non-ecological choice by virtue of price gouging for "new" technology . . .

As previously noted, this is a choice for the utility. To their credit, some utilities have exempted customers who buy wind power from electricity cost increases caused by spikes in the price of natural gas or other fuels. Where this has happened, in some cases customers who buy wind have actually enjoyed a cost savings.

(not so "new" when European countries have been using this type of power for centuries).

Wind power today is as different from wind power centuries ago as a Boeing 747 is different from a hot-air balloon.

It's the same scenario as with ecological cars that conserve fuel resources, but cost twice as much as conventional autos to buy (and we can't wait 2 to 3 years for the savings in fuel to break even).

Hybrid autos are not that much more expensive. You're right, though, increasing fuel efficiency standards would help push them into the market sooner and at lower costs.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
www.ifnotwind.org