Slashdot Mirror


Green Energy Almost Cost-Competitive with Fossil Fuels

js7a writes "As reported in the Houston Chronicle, the sharply rising cost of natural gas and other fossil fuels has caused the cost of renewable energy to finally reach the price of nonrenewables. However, wind still has some catching up to do: 'a 10 percent wind- and 90 percent water-generated mix is about $9 per month less expensive than the 100 percent wind plan.' As more wind generation and grid transmission capacity is built, wind will eventually become more competitive than hydroelectric, but hydro and other sources will be required to balance grid demand in calm areas. Slashdot has been following this trend."

2 of 843 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not exactly "green" yet by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lets dispel that "bird killer" myth once again with some actual numbers.

    Remember, windows are the number one man-made bird killer. Where's the anti-window lobby when you need it? Heck, the very power lines that take the power away from the wind turbines are more likely to kill birds than the turbines themselves.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  2. Re:Not exactly "green" yet by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, a windy part of the country will get you around 5MW per square kilometer. As tech improves, this will as well. In 2001, the US used 3.602 billion MWh of power, which if we assume constant use (more on this later), would imply ~400,000 MW power generation. That would be 80,000 square kilometers (~31,000 square miles). The US, with its 3.6 million square miles of land, would need to use roughly 2% of its land to generate its power needs - the best areas being little used badlands, mountainous regions, and low-cost midwest farmland. The land underneath wind farms can generally be used for farming, too (if it was initially usable).

    Now, realistically it's not feasable to use wind power for all of the US - it works great in some parts, but not so well in others.

    To handle the non-constant-use issue, hydro power is often proposed. Dams can control the amount of water that they release, so during low-wind or high demand times, they can make up the difference. Other proposals often involve things like surplus capacity fuel generation (hydrogen, etc), which is then used in power-shortage conditions or sold if not needed.

    Nobody wants wind power? The heck nobody wants it! I do, and I'm sure many other posters here do too. I don't find it ugly - I think the turbines look quite nice.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.