Wind Power - Blog Posts
Nikolas Perrault shares why it is crucial that proper storage solutions are developed for renewable energy.
"On a Dark Desert Highway,Cool Wind in My Hair..." Your eyes settle on the faint outline of a dust devil swirling near the far off mountain. The day is cool and there is a softness in the air. Still, something is unsettling,something is ajar . Whoosh... Then you realize the romantic vision of this valley you had is being distorted by the vigorous growth of a new forest. A contemporary forest . A forest for the "new" age. A place where these "trees" are planted and grow to full maturity in weeks, not years. A forest of sight and sound, of light and shadow. Whoosh...Whoosh... The sound fills your head and then settles in your heart. This beautiful valley is now the power for your cell phones and devices. Because power is what a contemporary forest is all about. Grand and beautiful power. Whoosh...Whoosh...Whoosh... These trees do not have a flavor.They cling to your sight and sing to your ears. Still they do not smell fresh. They leave a slight "sour" taste in the back of your throat; a sadness as much as a taste. The contemporary tree is not about pleasure like its counterparts in the natural world, it is all about power. Whoosh...Whoosh...Whoosh... Cry these "contemporaries"and my soul.....dennis
The cost of offshore wind in America is dropping, from 24¢/kWh for the operational Block Island wind farm, to 13¢/kWH for two proposed projects in MD, to an expected 10¢/kWh for two projects in MA. But German offshore wind is only 5¢/kWh. Why is German offshore wind so cheap, and how can US offshore achieve those prices and compte with natural gas (~7¢/kWh).
The biggest factor is perceived risk by financial backers due to regulatory uncertainty. A clear national policy on offshore wind, and a national commitment to developing offshore wind resources, could drive those costs down.
Also increasing cost is the lack of a domestic supply chain and infrastructure. If the US invests in a domestic supply chain, including ports to service offshore wind (as is being done in New Bedford, MA), US offshore wind could become cost competitive with natural gas.
Original Article
Fourteen US states generate at least 10% of their energy from wind power.
As Trump casts himself as a savior for the coal industry, the red states that voted for him are adding most of the nation’s clean energy,
From JUSTIN GILLIS and NADJA POPOVICH in the New York Times:
The five states that get the largest percentage of their power from wind turbines — Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma and North Dakota — all voted for Mr. Trump. So did Texas, which produces the most wind power in absolute terms. In fact, 69 percent of the wind power produced in the country comes from states that Mr. Trump carried in November... These red states are not motivated by a sudden desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... their leaders see tapping the wind, and to a lesser degree the sun, as an economic strategy. The clean energy push allows their utilities to lock in low power prices for decades, creates manufacturing jobs, puts steady money in the hands of farmers who host wind turbines, and lures big employers who want renewable power.
Offshore wind energy in Europe: Lots
Offshore wind energy in the US: none
(continued from previous post)
The big story in Houser and Mohan's study is where these cleaner forms of energy are coming from that are responsible for half of the drop in emissions. It's generally assumed that the drop is a result of cleaner and cheap natural gas pushing out dirty coal. However, Houser and Mohan show that we shouldn't be counting out reneables.
Plumer:
Natural gas is indeed pushing out dirtier coal, and that makes a sizable difference (burning natural gas for electricity emits about half the carbon-dioxide that burning coal does). But wind farms are also sprouting up across the country, thanks to government subsidies. What’s more, industrial sites are burning more biomass for heat and electricity, while biofuels like ethanol are nudging out oil. All of that has done a lot to cut emissions.
From the Washington Post:
"There are two ways to think about the cost of energy. There’s the dollar amount that shows up on our utility bills or at the pump. And then there’s the “social cost” — all the adverse consequences that various energy sources... end up foisting on the public."
"The blue bars represent the current market cost of various energy sources. On top of that, Greenstone and Looney have added estimated health damages from air pollution (the purple bar), as well as the cost of climate-changing carbon emissions that come with burning fossil fuels (the gray bar)."
"At the end of the paper, Greenstone and Looney argue that the government should put a price on the social costs of fossil fuels — either through a cap on emissions or a tax. “If firms and consumers faced the full cost of their energy use,” they write, “they would have a greater incentive to make more-informed and socially efficient decisions about energy consumption.”"
Meanwhile, as coal's share of U.S. electricity production declines, wind power capacity has been increasing. By the end of 2010, total wind power capacity exceeded 40,000 megawatts, representing a cumulative investment total of $78 billion since the beginning of the 1980s.
*the slowed growth observed in 2010 is attributed to the delayed impact of the global financial crisis (which impacted the apparent availability of capital for 2010 projects that were being planned in 2009), low natural gas prices and a lower overall demand for energy