Your fail to understand that the Power Purchase Agreements are to sell all of the power they generate. That depends on how much wind there is since they are not ever meeting 100% of demand.
There are many billions being invested in wind, do really think that those investors can't add up and are too stupid to be able to negotiate agreements for new wind farms, please, give me a break.
Those 2.5c agreements are new agreements recently negotiated.
I see not point debating with you if you are just going to make stuff up after I have provided concrete evidence that newly negotiated agreements between rich investors for new wind farms are only costing 2.5c and less according to the govt's own literature based upon those agreements. FFS. Those investors have done the math, those investments are a done deal, they know how much wind there is going to be, they know they are going to make money on the investment.
I have given you the proof that wind is cheapest and you choose to ignore it. How can a generator that requires fuel competewith a generator that doesn't require fuel?
Like I said, your arguments are all out of date.
There is ZERO chance that solar will knock off 3/4ths of their costs in the next decade.
It's funny, because if you care to look, you'll see that from 1977 the price of solar went from $76.00 a watt to less thaqn $0.74 a watt now, that's one hundred times less.
You seem to be having difficulty facing the truth of the current situation.
Why would the wind farms enter into long term contracts if they thought they would be losing money, that makes no sense, back up your frivolous negative assertions with something concrete please.
Wind is cheap, get over it. And they don't use fuel!
The money paid to the wind farms through the PPAs and subsides mentioned amounting to an average of 3.65c per kwh pays for those wind farms.
Your argument regarding killing people is absurd, you don't seem to be able to accept the fact that wind is cheap and solar is about to get very cheap too.
There is currently $5 trillion invested into fossil fuels, I happen to think that renewables can do just as good as job especially if we invested 5 trillion.Where Can The Fossil Fuel Investments Go?
Cutting down on coal use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down on gas use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down Diesel use cuts CO2 emissions.
Different forms of power emit largely different amounts of CO2.
According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh.
$25 per mWh is the price agreed in the power purchase agreement (PPA), so it is not "I wish" it is actual contractual average price paid over a bunch of contracts - some are cheaper.
Page 11, subsidies over 20 years amounting to 1.15c per kwh
" I don't see the savings when you still have to build the NG plant..."
1. Is gas free? 2. Gas has a carbon footprint when generating, wind doesn't. 3. Wind will be around for billions of years, Gas won't, it makes sense to ration gas as much as possible. Right now we are glutting on gas. Current estimates for gas are that it will last 40-100 years and the lions share of it is in Russia. 4. Gas is not the only type of complementing power, there is solar, geothermal, solar thermal, heat exchange, hydro, pumped hydro, battery storage, compress air storage etc.
Wind Technologies Market Report Page 11 "wind power price trends" The subsidies amount to 1.15c per kWh for a total real cost of 3.65c over 20 years by which point the wind farm will be paid for and modern wind generators are built to last 40 years, after that the wind farm could be upgraded at substantially reduced cost.
Reminder that oil, gas including fracking are subsidised and nuclear is supported by incentives/guarantees. Coal has massive external costs which would make it the most expensive if those were included in the price (they should be).
The report with the 25$ per mWh figure is written by the US dept' of energy. The $ figure is what will be paid for the wind energy rather than some hypothesised amount.
I actually don't believe 100% in CO2 caused global warming but think it is likely and prudent to guard against damaging the worlds atmosphere.
Note, the link you gave is looking backwards at cost, the govt report I linked is new (aug2014) and looking at future cost which is course the more relevant amount.
That is no longer true, what part of wind costing 2.5c per kwh don't you understand?
Renewables are right now being adopted on industrial scales, large industrial scales. A very large proportion of new energy capacity being installed globally is now renewables.
Solar is getting cheaper every year and reached grid parity for most of the worlds population 2 years ago. In UK and Germany we are installing residential Solar PV for a small fraction of the US installation costs and even in rainy cloudy England Solar could pay for itself without subsidy and then go on to provide extremely cheap electricity.
Wind and Solar can be complemented with Hydro, pumped hydro, geothermal, biogas, battery storage, compressed air storage, wave and tidal power etc.
Windmills are a bit better, but are still not cost effective, use water in dry areas
If we stop buying their stuff, the price just goes down and folks like China and poor countries in Africa will just burn what we don't, and the terrorists get rich off of them.
No, it doesn't work like that, if 10% of world demand disappears then mines shut down, any price drop is temporary. "terrorists get rich" doesn't deserve a response.
I'm no expert but I'd say it is jihadist and promotional, it shows that they believe steadfastly in what they are doing and think this will cause other extreme Muslims to join them. It seems to work. (note I do realise most Muslims abhor the beheading).
Apparently you don't understand how shocking it is to watch someone being beheaded and you should watch the video in order to be shocked because, you know, it is shocking. (perhaps someone can explain this line of reasoning to me).
Never mind that the terrorists made the video to further their cause and a lot of people watching the video will be young men watching it for the lols. What next, youtube videos of peoples reaction to the beheading?
If the video made people understand how atrocious wars are and made them anti-war then I would support the showing of it, but it won't. Instead, it will most likely increase hate on both sides and make people want to kill even more.
What the western world has done to the Middle East is a huge war crime, we are largely responsible for the mess there, the beheading is blowback.
Why not, beheading = chopping someones head off. A gruesome and atrocious act that would thoroughly sicken me if I watched it, I know that without having to watch it.
Please explain what watching this video would accomplish, that stating the person was beheaded does not. You have supplied no good argument and merely accusing someone of talking out of their ass when they're stating an honest opinion adds nothing to the debate.
Maybe you can't imagine someone having their head chopped off, I can.
You are ignoring the fact that it was UK tax-payers money that paid for everything Dr Who so it is a complete piss take that we don't have access to this for free.
Last time I looked 1400W was common, now 2400W is common.
I'd be happy if they banned putting the Wattage in the product title as a temporary measure, no doubt some of these 2400W are still crap and edging towards being a fire hazard with that much power enclosed in a small space.
What do you do with your vac' when you've finished with it? Shove it in the cupboard with lots of highly flammable materials, perhaps underneath the stairs?
I think they worry too much about what constitutes a good myth.
I'd like to see a lot more smaller myths tackled - that'd get rid of the 'fluff' and like some have mentioned, they spend too much time repeating stuff - at least 3-4 times they say what they are going to do.
They need to stop catering for an extremely low common denominator.
If they made the episodes available worldwide, DRM free 1080p with the ads and repetitions removed, I might find it hard to resist snapping them up even at $2 each.
The cold skepticism they're getting is totally unwarranted
Corporations have terrible safety records, it's laws, unions and standards that keep them in check, skepticism is warranted
Autonomous car accidents should be treated like aircraft accidents - thoroughly investigated and the conclusions used to further improve safety where possible and practical.
People keep talking about the past safety record of google cars, but google cars don't have a safety record, they are not a final product. The cars that have been tested so far have had test engineers ready to take control when needed - and they have needed to take control on occasions, even with the cherry picking of routes.
You don't think it's cruel to keep a cat locked indoors for it's whole life? Maybe we should simple discourage people from keeping domestic cats / bring the number down a bit.
IDK why residential consumers aren't offered variable rates that match grid electricity supply cost more closely, like economy-7 on steroids. Car-charging, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers and storage heaters can all be timed. A more revolutionary idea would be to have the grid signal these devices to turn them on (in a staggered manner).
âoeAnd worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels remain six times higher than economic incentives for renewables.â http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
If we stopped that then we would see a cleaner energy mix, the west's subsidies of fossil fuels helps bring down fossil fuel prices for everyone.
I agree that increasing renewables will stabilise the price of fossil fuels whilst most are predicting sharp rises in fossil prices, but then Russia and the middle east hold over 2/3rds of the worlds gas supply so we should be careful not to be too dependant on gas, the UK only has 3 years worth of reserves left now / we are importing about half of our gas.
Half the worlds population won't leave poverty anytime soon if we keep controlling the markets with futures and companies like Nestle and Lever who don't give a crap if people die due to their products and practices. We control 'developing' countries with WTO rules and world bank loans, whilst we don't practice what we preach (subsidies).
Whether or not the grids curtail solar and wind energy is typically a governmental choice rather than a grid operator choice. If your objective is to cut CO2 and fossil imports then it makes sense to take every bit of renewable energy available and only fire up the fossils to fill the gaps. The situation may reach a point where the govt will have to pay some generators to maintain idling equipment as a backup. As wind and solar reach the point where they can exist without subsidy, those subsidies can be moved to geothermal and battery/energy storage R&D.
I disagree about the video, your video is about power generation, the video I posted is about the grid and ensuring supply when there is the complication of clusters of residential solar having been installed.
Can't say that I believed the "Geothermal sources could supply Germany's electricity needs 600 times over" statement, but Germany seems to have much better solar potential than Britain.
Agreed, geothermal is well suited for community heating.
geothermal electricity production in Germany didn't even amount to 0.1% of just the renewables.
Got to start somewhere, Photovoltaics went from 0.6GWh in 1990 to 28,000GWh in 2012, the last 2 decades of investment are starting to pay off now.
The CLNR project is funded by Ofgemâ(TM)s Low Carbon Network Fund and electricity distribution network operator Northern Powergrid.
Doesn't sound like a 'manufacturer' to me. The point was not to see if the particular project would be cheaper but more to investigate the effectiveness of different levels of storage and to have something concrete upon which to base future cost estimates. The cost today is not what the cost 2-5 years will be when the cost of battery storage and solar continue to plummet.
Gas peaker electricity is very expensive, far higher than nuclear etc. I think it could easily be replaced by replacing hydro with wind, solar etc and then only using the hydro when wind output is low, geothermal is also ideal for this kind of situation, Germany is investing a lot in geothermal, hopefully that will bring down the price of that tech a lot.
I agree that there is no magic simple just build a million solar panels and that's it done scenario. Yes, managing power grids is complicated, that doesn't mean that solar + wind +storage + hydro + geothermal etc can't make up 90%+ of the energy mix.
Did the sun stop shining for 4 days, did geothermal potential disappear? Anyway I think it would cost a bit less than a $trillion and of note Germany are already spending about over $200,000,000,000 a year on electricity, so from a long term perspective a day or two of country size storage could be a good investment - after battery technology and price improves.
Geothermal sources could supply Germany's electricity needs 600 times over,
Higher than fossil fuel LCOE for wind, solar at utility level right now maybe but that is about to be consigned to history if one looks at the way costs are moving. Solar is already cheaper at the residential level (grid parity) in most of the world.
Yes some companies might go bust, that's capitalism, like it or loathe it. But regardless, by the end of this decade renewables will be by far the cheapest method of electricity production and the video I linked shows is one of the many solutions to the intermittency of wind and solar, geothermal is another solution which could potentially supply 20% of Britain's electricity - more than is needed to support 100% renewable electricity generation. Hydro can also be used in a stop-start manner.
Nuclear is expensive and getting more expensive, renewables is less expensive and getting a lot cheaper every year.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope no-one finds the off switch.
Your fail to understand that the Power Purchase Agreements are to sell all of the power they generate. That depends on how much wind there is since they are not ever meeting 100% of demand.
There are many billions being invested in wind, do really think that those investors can't add up and are too stupid to be able to negotiate agreements for new wind farms, please, give me a break.
Those 2.5c agreements are new agreements recently negotiated.
I see not point debating with you if you are just going to make stuff up after I have provided concrete evidence that newly negotiated agreements between rich investors for new wind farms are only costing 2.5c and less according to the govt's own literature based upon those agreements. FFS. Those investors have done the math, those investments are a done deal, they know how much wind there is going to be, they know they are going to make money on the investment.
"but until it makes financial sense enough to get places like China and India to start using this stuff"
They are:
Chinaâ(TM)s Coal Consumption Has Finally Decreased
Beijing Cut Coal Use By 7 Percent, Proving Intentions
How many times do I have to say renewables are getting cheap?
http://costofsolar.com/cost-of...
(2013 charts out of date - solar is cheaper now!)
Solar is not 4-5 times more expensive now, it is reaching parity with coal.
Solar at Grid Parity in Utah, a Coal State With No RPS
"a huge jump in technology."
Lots of them, and they're not slowing down.
http://bxhorn.com/wp-content/u...
I have given you the proof that wind is cheapest and you choose to ignore it. How can a generator that requires fuel competewith a generator that doesn't require fuel?
Like I said, your arguments are all out of date.
It's funny, because if you care to look, you'll see that from 1977 the price of solar went from $76.00 a watt to less thaqn $0.74 a watt now, that's one hundred times less.
You seem to be having difficulty facing the truth of the current situation.
Global installed wind:
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2...
Global installed solar (take your pick):
https://www.google.co.uk/searc...
All power stations have transmission costs.
Why would the wind farms enter into long term contracts if they thought they would be losing money, that makes no sense, back up your frivolous negative assertions with something concrete please.
Wind is cheap, get over it. And they don't use fuel!
The money paid to the wind farms through the PPAs and subsides mentioned amounting to an average of 3.65c per kwh pays for those wind farms.
Your argument regarding killing people is absurd, you don't seem to be able to accept the fact that wind is cheap and solar is about to get very cheap too.
There is currently $5 trillion invested into fossil fuels, I happen to think that renewables can do just as good as job especially if we invested 5 trillion.Where Can The Fossil Fuel Investments Go?
Places where USA has no control? China has some good reasons to cut down coal usage, not least because half their population is choking to death.
Chinaâ(TM)s Coal Consumption Has Finally Decreased
Cutting down on coal use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down on gas use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down Diesel use cuts CO2 emissions.
Different forms of power emit largely different amounts of CO2.
http://www.nature.com/climate/...
I agree.
Wind Technologies Market Report
$25 per mWh is the price agreed in the power purchase agreement (PPA), so it is not "I wish" it is actual contractual average price paid over a bunch of contracts - some are cheaper.
Page 11, subsidies over 20 years amounting to 1.15c per kwh
Wind still getting cheaper: 2013 Wind PPA Prices In US Interior Averaged 2.1 Cents/ KWH
Can a gas powered station give 10, 20 or 30 year price guarantees?
" I don't see the savings when you still have to build the NG plant..."
1. Is gas free?
2. Gas has a carbon footprint when generating, wind doesn't.
3. Wind will be around for billions of years, Gas won't, it makes sense to ration gas as much as possible. Right now we are glutting on gas. Current estimates for gas are that it will last 40-100 years and the lions share of it is in Russia.
4. Gas is not the only type of complementing power, there is solar, geothermal, solar thermal, heat exchange, hydro, pumped hydro, battery storage, compress air storage etc.
Wind Technologies Market Report Page 11 "wind power price trends" The subsidies amount to 1.15c per kWh for a total real cost of 3.65c over 20 years by which point the wind farm will be paid for and modern wind generators are built to last 40 years, after that the wind farm could be upgraded at substantially reduced cost.
Reminder that oil, gas including fracking are subsidised and nuclear is supported by incentives/guarantees. Coal has massive external costs which would make it the most expensive if those were included in the price (they should be).
The report with the 25$ per mWh figure is written by the US dept' of energy. The $ figure is what will be paid for the wind energy rather than some hypothesised amount.
I actually don't believe 100% in CO2 caused global warming but think it is likely and prudent to guard against damaging the worlds atmosphere.
Note, the link you gave is looking backwards at cost, the govt report I linked is new (aug2014) and looking at future cost which is course the more relevant amount.
That is no longer true, what part of wind costing 2.5c per kwh don't you understand?
Renewables are right now being adopted on industrial scales, large industrial scales. A very large proportion of new energy capacity being installed globally is now renewables.
I'm sorry but the use by date has expired for that argument.
Wind generation PPAs are currently as low as 2.5c per kWh, the subsidy only amounts to about 1.25c per kWh
How Low Can Wind Energy Go? 2.5c Per Kilowatt-Hour Is Just The Beginning
Solar is getting cheaper every year and reached grid parity for most of the worlds population 2 years ago. In UK and Germany we are installing residential Solar PV for a small fraction of the US installation costs and even in rainy cloudy England Solar could pay for itself without subsidy and then go on to provide extremely cheap electricity.
Wind and Solar can be complemented with Hydro, pumped hydro, geothermal, biogas, battery storage, compressed air storage, wave and tidal power etc.
Windmills use water!!!! No, they don't! lol.
Not much geothermal potential!!! Wrong.
http://www.treehugger.com/rene...
No, it doesn't work like that, if 10% of world demand disappears then mines shut down, any price drop is temporary. "terrorists get rich" doesn't deserve a response.
I'm no expert but I'd say it is jihadist and promotional, it shows that they believe steadfastly in what they are doing and think this will cause other extreme Muslims to join them. It seems to work. (note I do realise most Muslims abhor the beheading).
Apparently you don't understand how shocking it is to watch someone being beheaded and you should watch the video in order to be shocked because, you know, it is shocking. (perhaps someone can explain this line of reasoning to me).
Never mind that the terrorists made the video to further their cause and a lot of people watching the video will be young men watching it for the lols. What next, youtube videos of peoples reaction to the beheading?
If the video made people understand how atrocious wars are and made them anti-war then I would support the showing of it, but it won't. Instead, it will most likely increase hate on both sides and make people want to kill even more.
What the western world has done to the Middle East is a huge war crime, we are largely responsible for the mess there, the beheading is blowback.
Why not, beheading = chopping someones head off. A gruesome and atrocious act that would thoroughly sicken me if I watched it, I know that without having to watch it.
Please explain what watching this video would accomplish, that stating the person was beheaded does not. You have supplied no good argument and merely accusing someone of talking out of their ass when they're stating an honest opinion adds nothing to the debate.
Maybe you can't imagine someone having their head chopped off, I can.
You are ignoring the fact that it was UK tax-payers money that paid for everything Dr Who so it is a complete piss take that we don't have access to this for free.
Understanding fair use
The UK does have 'Fair Use', but the rules are vague and generally not as good as the US's more legally fleshed out rules.
Vacuum cleaners
Last time I looked 1400W was common, now 2400W is common.
I'd be happy if they banned putting the Wattage in the product title as a temporary measure, no doubt some of these 2400W are still crap and edging towards being a fire hazard with that much power enclosed in a small space.
What do you do with your vac' when you've finished with it? Shove it in the cupboard with lots of highly flammable materials, perhaps underneath the stairs?
Quick search confirms it happens:
https://www.google.co.uk/searc...
I think they worry too much about what constitutes a good myth.
I'd like to see a lot more smaller myths tackled - that'd get rid of the 'fluff' and like some have mentioned, they spend too much time repeating stuff - at least 3-4 times they say what they are going to do.
They need to stop catering for an extremely low common denominator.
If they made the episodes available worldwide, DRM free 1080p with the ads and repetitions removed, I might find it hard to resist snapping them up even at $2 each.
Corporations have terrible safety records, it's laws, unions and standards that keep them in check, skepticism is warranted
Autonomous car accidents should be treated like aircraft accidents - thoroughly investigated and the conclusions used to further improve safety where possible and practical.
People keep talking about the past safety record of google cars, but google cars don't have a safety record, they are not a final product. The cars that have been tested so far have had test engineers ready to take control when needed - and they have needed to take control on occasions, even with the cherry picking of routes.
Batman is nearby in Turkey maybe he can help out.
https://goo.gl/maps/J651g
I thought 'extremely massive' stars were supposed to end up as black holes when they collapsed?
You don't think it's cruel to keep a cat locked indoors for it's whole life? Maybe we should simple discourage people from keeping domestic cats / bring the number down a bit.
IDK why residential consumers aren't offered variable rates that match grid electricity supply cost more closely, like economy-7 on steroids. Car-charging, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers and storage heaters can all be timed. A more revolutionary idea would be to have the grid signal these devices to turn them on (in a staggered manner).
âoeAnd worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels remain six times higher than economic incentives for renewables.â
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
If we stopped that then we would see a cleaner energy mix, the west's subsidies of fossil fuels helps bring down fossil fuel prices for everyone.
I agree that increasing renewables will stabilise the price of fossil fuels whilst most are predicting sharp rises in fossil prices, but then Russia and the middle east hold over 2/3rds of the worlds gas supply so we should be careful not to be too dependant on gas, the UK only has 3 years worth of reserves left now / we are importing about half of our gas.
Half the worlds population won't leave poverty anytime soon if we keep controlling the markets with futures and companies like Nestle and Lever who don't give a crap if people die due to their products and practices. We control 'developing' countries with WTO rules and world bank loans, whilst we don't practice what we preach (subsidies).
Whether or not the grids curtail solar and wind energy is typically a governmental choice rather than a grid operator choice. If your objective is to cut CO2 and fossil imports then it makes sense to take every bit of renewable energy available and only fire up the fossils to fill the gaps. The situation may reach a point where the govt will have to pay some generators to maintain idling equipment as a backup. As wind and solar reach the point where they can exist without subsidy, those subsidies can be moved to geothermal and battery/energy storage R&D.
I disagree about the video, your video is about power generation, the video I posted is about the grid and ensuring supply when there is the complication of clusters of residential solar having been installed.
Can't say that I believed the "Geothermal sources could supply Germany's electricity needs 600 times over" statement, but Germany seems to have much better solar potential than Britain.
Agreed, geothermal is well suited for community heating.
Got to start somewhere, Photovoltaics went from 0.6GWh in 1990 to 28,000GWh in 2012, the last 2 decades of investment are starting to pay off now.
Doesn't sound like a 'manufacturer' to me. The point was not to see if the particular project would be cheaper but more to investigate the effectiveness of different levels of storage and to have something concrete upon which to base future cost estimates. The cost today is not what the cost 2-5 years will be when the cost of battery storage and solar continue to plummet.
Gas peaker electricity is very expensive, far higher than nuclear etc. I think it could easily be replaced by replacing hydro with wind, solar etc and then only using the hydro when wind output is low, geothermal is also ideal for this kind of situation, Germany is investing a lot in geothermal, hopefully that will bring down the price of that tech a lot.
I agree that there is no magic simple just build a million solar panels and that's it done scenario. Yes, managing power grids is complicated, that doesn't mean that solar + wind +storage + hydro + geothermal etc can't make up 90%+ of the energy mix.
Did the sun stop shining for 4 days, did geothermal potential disappear? Anyway I think it would cost a bit less than a $trillion and of note Germany are already spending about over $200,000,000,000 a year on electricity, so from a long term perspective a day or two of country size storage could be a good investment - after battery technology and price improves.
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
Higher than fossil fuel LCOE for wind, solar at utility level right now maybe but that is about to be consigned to history if one looks at the way costs are moving. Solar is already cheaper at the residential level (grid parity) in most of the world.
Yes some companies might go bust, that's capitalism, like it or loathe it. But regardless, by the end of this decade renewables will be by far the cheapest method of electricity production and the video I linked shows is one of the many solutions to the intermittency of wind and solar, geothermal is another solution which could potentially supply 20% of Britain's electricity - more than is needed to support 100% renewable electricity generation. Hydro can also be used in a stop-start manner.
Nuclear is expensive and getting more expensive, renewables is less expensive and getting a lot cheaper every year.