Woes of Wind Power

[Snrrub]

Okay, I have actual numbers now. These are total life cycle costs (unsubsidized).

• Nuclear: between 4 and 5 cents/kWh
  Wind: 10 cents/kWh
  Solar: 70 cents/kWh

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Aristotle
No, it was on launch. I realize you may not have been born yet (or barely born) so I'll cut you some slack. I was watching it live on TV at the time.

Oh! It was Columbia that had trouble on re-entry. Whoops. I remember Columbia happening - didn't watch it on live TV, but it was all over the papers and everything. That one was within my living memory. (I was... three years old at the time of Challenger's disaster.)

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Okay, I have actual numbers now. These are total life cycle costs (unsubsidized).

• Nuclear: between 4 and 5 cents/kWh
  Wind: 10 cents/kWh
  Solar: 70 cents/kWh

I wonder what version of solar power this is. There are various technologies for getting power from sunlight; the classic photovoltaic cell (the typical "solar panel") is definitely expensive, but there are setups that superheat salt and use that to run a turbine - at least, I'm sure I remember something along those lines (mirrors focussing energy on a central pillar, superheating the salt, and a turbine atop it or something), but I can't find anything about it now.

Still, wind power comes out not TOO badly expensive. Considering how little electricity you get from one turbine (well, little compared to nuclear - if one house were to look at getting a small wind turbine, it could easily power itself), that's not a bad price.

[Gesslar]

Found this relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has staked out a claim for making New York City a clean-energy powerhouse through off-shore and on-building wind farms.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10...=2547-1_3-0-20

[Ilusan]

What I don't understand is critics treating alternative energy like the blu-ray vs. HD disc phenomenon. Seems we can pursue all viable alternatives and use what works best in different places.

Here's a little snippet about new solar power experiments. Nothing to get excited about but i thought it was interesting.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov...archterm=solar


Also, im not sure if the large Hadron Collider will provide any more information about actual fusion...but it will give physicists a better understanding of different particles (notice the layman interest here:-) that could help with such environmental/energy sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Im waiting for the day when solar, wind, water, fusion, fission what have you is no longer considered "alternative" energy and just energy.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Ilusan
What I don't understand is critics treating alternative energy like the blu-ray vs. HD disc phenomenon. Seems we can pursue all viable alternatives and use what works best in different places.

Well that's simple. Different companies have investments in different alternatives, so of course they are all slandering each other.

And our sucktastic mass media is so dishonest and on the take they rarely give an honest evaluation of the pros, cons, and progress behind the various forms of energy.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Ilusan
Im waiting for the day when solar, wind, water, fusion, fission what have you is no longer considered "alternative" energy and just energy.

We're getting there. "The date's not distant." Ethanol-fueled buses are driving the streets of Melbourne with little fuss now (previously they were loudly heralded - "These buses run on canola!" and "These buses run on sugar cane!" - but now they're just quietly running routes), and I think most people don't really care where their electricity comes from. Electric and solar cars are still esoteric, though.

[Aristotle]

Ethanol is one of the biggest scams of the current green movement. I was reading an article a few months ago in Wired about how environmentally unfriendly ethanol is. It takes an enormous amount of corn to make, and the environmental impact of growing that corn is pretty significant.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Ethanol is one of the biggest scams of the current green movement. I was reading an article a few months ago in Wired about how environmentally unfriendly ethanol is. It takes an enormous amount of corn to make, and the environmental impact of growing that corn is pretty significant.

Corn is pretty much the worst plant from which to harvest ethanol. However, when the technology is available to efficiently produce ethanol from weeds and grasses, I think that ethanol will become one of the staples of our energy infrastructure.

[Rosuav]

Far as I know, you can make ethanol from practically anything. I don't know how it's made from canola, but the "Sugar Buses" (as they're called) use ethanol made out of waste product from the sugar cane industry - which is quite a large industry in Australia. Sugar cane might not be as effective in countries where it's not already big. I don't think ethanol _itself_ is a scam, although it may well be that explicitly cultivating corn for ethanol is inefficient. (Let's face it, if you're growing something for no reason other than to power a bus, that's ultimately a grossly inefficient solar powered bus.)