QuoteElectric power companies do not ignore the laws of economics. They are profitable.
Being profitable doesn't imply being sustainable. Manufacturers of war ships are also profitable and their production steadily increases.
LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.
-
-
Of course it isn't - but "renewables" increase its consumption, not decrease it. I don't like "renewables" just because I don't like fossils. Am I only person at the whole world who can see it?
How does this chart support the point you are making?? (rhetorical question - it doesn't) Nothing in it suggests that renewables increase fossil fuel consumption. That's because they don't.
However, the chart hides the real disturbing fact: global energy use has nearly tripled since the early 70s. That's the real problem and is all the more reason to reduce fossil fuel usage ASAP.
-
Quote
global energy use has nearly tripled since the early 70s. That's the real problem and is all the more reason to reduce fossil fuel usage ASAP.
Just because "renewables" are so raw sources and energy hungry?
-
Of course it isn't - but "renewables" increase its consumption, not decrease it.
That is absurd. Wind turbine manufacturing uses mainly electricity. Wind turbines produce electricity. The manufacturing could sustain itself. They produce all of the energy it takes to make them in 3 to 6 months. That's the energy payback time. They do not consume any energy after that.
Furthermore, your graph proves nothing about anything; it cut off too soon, in 2009; and it does not apply to the U.S. and other first world countries. Here is the graph you should be looking at from the EIA: https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl…electricity-in-the-us.php. As you see, both the total amount of coal and the percent of electricity from coal have declined dramatically.
The trend for coal here accelerated dramatically this year because of the coronavirus. Coal now produces less electricity than renewables.
-
Just because "renewables" are so raw sources and energy hungry?
Renewables do not consume more raw sources than fossil fuel. They consume less. A wind farm takes far less steel than the mines and railroads needed for coal, or the pipeline needed for natural gas. It takes up less space on the ground. You can grow crops around the base of the towers. The energy payback time for wind is shorter than fossil fuel, not longer. So they are not "energy hungry."
Your statements are totally at odds with the facts shown at the EIA and other authoritative sources. You should stop saying things that anyone can see are wrong, or even nonsensical. This is the 21st century. Anyone can look up the facts in a few minutes and see that what you say is not true. You are not making yourself look good, and not persuading anyone.
-
Quote
They produce all of the energy it takes to make them in 3 to 6 months. That's the energy payback time
It implies that wind plant should generate 100x times more money than it consumes during its 300 - 600 months life-time. It's electricity should be thus 100 x cheaper than the price of electricty let say from gas plant (5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour) i.e. some 0.054 cents per kilowatt-hour. But real price of wind electricity is 5 cents per kWh (it only recently got cheaper than gas/coal one).
Where the problem is?
-
Most of the 2 MW commercial-scale turbines installed today cost roughly $3-$4 million installed and they generate 10 GWh during their life-time, which corresponds 40 cents per kWh. Now we have two mysteries: how is it possible, that something which allegedly costs at least 40 cents to produce gets sold for ten times lower price (5 cents per kWh) ? And how it is possible, that this price is still one hundred-times higher, that estimated cost of energy required for production?
Now we are talking about difference of three orders in magnitude!
-
[They produce all of the energy it takes to make them in 3 to 6 months. That's the energy payback time]
It implies that wind plant should generate 100x times more money than it consumes during its 300 - 600 months life-time.
That would be the dollar payback time, not the energy payback time. It takes 3 to 6 months to generate the energy used to manufacture and install the wind turbine, but it takes longer than that to generate the money the turbine costs.
A turbine costs approximately $1.3 to $2.2 million per megawatt of nameplate capacity. It produces about 1/3rd of nameplate, so that's $3.9 to $6.6 million per actual megawatt. 1 MWH of electricity is worth about $137, so that's 28,467 to 48,000 hours. Or 3.2 to 5.5 years. After that, it is pretty much all gravy, because maintenance costs are lower than they are for fossil fuel generators, and there are no fuel costs.
The cost per megawatt of capacity for wind is somewhat higher than fossil fuel, but on the other hand the fuel cost is zero, so the dollar payback time is about the same for both.
-
Most of the 2 MW commercial-scale turbines installed today cost roughly $3-$4 million installed and they generate 10 GWh during their life-time, which corresponds 40 cents per kWh. Now we have two mysteries: how is it possible,
It is not possible. You made an arithmetic error. I do that all the time, so I sympathize. It is not 10 GWh during the lifetime. A 2 MW turbine generates about 0.66 MW per hour on average. 10 GWH is 10,000 MWh. Dividing 10,000 MWh by 0.66 MW gives 15,010 hours. That's 625 days. They last longer than that.
Wind turbine generators last about 30 years. The towers last longer. Anyway, generating 0.66 MW per average hour for 30 years is 262,800 hours * 0.66 MW = ~173,000 MWh or 173 GWh.
Since the towers last longer, and you only need to replace the generator portion, the dollar payback is a little better than that suggests. On the other hand, I think the blades need to be replaced more often. A fossil fuel generator needs parts replaced during its lifetime as well. I believe the maintenance costs per MWh for wind are lower.
-
QuoteIt takes 3 to 6 months to generate the energy used to manufacture and install the wind turbine, but it takes longer (3.2 to 5.5 years) than that to generate the money the turbine costs.
Are you telling me, it takes ten times longer to generate energy for paying the plant than to generate energy for buying the same plant?
-
Quote
Wind turbine generators last about 30 years. The towers last longer. Anyway, generating 0.66 MW per average hour for 30 years is 262,800 hours * 0.66 MW = ~173,000 MWh or 173 GWh.
So we have 2 MW turbine with cost 2 x $2.2 = $4.4 million which generates 173.000 MWh during its 30 years life-time, which are sold for $137/MWh which gives $23 million revenue and nearly $20 million profit. Why such a business needs $7.047 billion governmental subsidizes each year, after then?
-
Are you telling me, it takes ten times longer to generate energy for paying the plant than to generate energy for buying the same plant?
Apparently. I suppose that means the cost of energy is approximately one-tenth of the cost of manufacturing the wind turbine. The rest is for materials, labor and so on. That seems reasonable.
-
Quote
cost of energy is approximately one-tenth of the cost... the rest is for materials, labor and so on. That seems reasonable.
Materials are abundant all around us within Earth crust, they cost nothing. The rest is energy required for mining, transport and treatment of materials, keeping labor force live and so on...
You just cannot consider only one-tenth of energy and to ignore the whole 90% rest. Got it? After all, one can get these money by mining and selling the coal without actually burning it. -
Why such a business needs $7.047 billion governmental subsidizes each year, after then?
The numbers in that website are wrong. Nukes generate 20% of U.S. power, not 10%. Anyway, wind subsidies are needed because fossil fuel is subsidized in many ways, not just directly. It has entrenched advantages, as do many long-established industries. For example, the government gives it tax write-offs for fuel, which does not apply to wind. Not needing any fuel is an advantage, so it is unfair to reward the fossil fuel industry with a tax write-off. You are rewarding a problem. The government and society also give fossil fuel a free pass for pollution, for killing 20,000 people a year, and for causing global warming. Fossil fuel should be taxed and discouraged, not subsidized. A carbon tax is needed.
Many established industries have unfair advantages. For example, automobiles seem cheaper than mass transit, but that is because the government pays for the roads. The gas tax does not cover all roads; only interstate highways. If we charged drivers tolls for the use of roads, or raised the gas taxes, cars would cost more than mass transit.
-
the rest is for materials, labor and so on.
Materials are abundant all around us within Earth crust, they cost nothing.
That is true, but extracting, refining and preparing them costs money. Evidently, only about 10% of the cost of extracting and preparing them goes for energy. The rest is for equipment, people, and so on. That's in line with various industry estimates. In the U.S., energy is about 8% of the GDP. Some products are more energy intensive than others.
-
Quote
wind subsidies are needed because fossil fuel is subsidized in many ways, not just directly.
This is just another myth - if the fossil fuels would need net subsidizes, then the countries like Russia or Kuwait would be poorest countries in the world and they wouldn't fight for another fossil fuel reserves. The fossil fuel energetics is actually most profitable and lucrative one.
QuoteThe rest is for equipment, people, and so on
People are most abundant commodity at the world as they're breeding willingly for free: it's the cost of energy required for production of food, education, transport and building houses which makes labour force expensive. All money and prices are just about hidden energy expenditure and cost, i.e. carbon footprint.
-
This is just another myth - if the fossil fuels would need net subsidizes, then countries like Russia or Kuwait would be poorest countries in the world.
We subsidize them here, not in Saudi Arabia! We give them a tax depreciation for the wells running out in the U.S. only. Wind does not get that because the well never runs out. The wind does not decrease.
More to the point, we do not make the fossil fuel industry pay for the pollution it causes, and the 20,000 people it kills with coal smoke, or global warming. If you added in those costs, it would be 5 or 10 times more expensive. If the coal industry were held liable for the people it kills every year, it would gone in a few years. Any other industry that killed off 20,000 people for no reason, with technology that could easily be fixed, would be held accountable. The thing is, they could easily remove all the particles from coal smoke to stop killing people, but that would raise the cost of coal electricity far above the cost of wind, solar or natural gas electricity. It is only cheaper because they get away with murder. They get away with it because they do not kill middle class urban Americans. They kill poor people living in depressed rural areas. This is not a subsidy in the usual sense. It is more like breaking into 20,000 poor people's houses, beating them to death, and taking their money. It is not strictly taxing them in the ordinary sense, but it is definitely immoral. I think a subsidy for clean energy is a much better idea.
-
This is just another myth - if the fossil fuels would need net subsidizes, then the countries like Russia or Kuwait would be poorest countries in the world and they wouldn't fight for another fossil fuel reserves. The fossil fuel energetics is actually most profitable and lucrative one.
fossil fuel subsidies are no myth.
The International Energy Agency reported 400 Billion USD in fossil fuel subsidies in 2018.
Renewable subsidies are just a fraction of this.
-
People are most abundant commodity at the world as they're breeding willingly for free: it's the cost of energy required for production of food, education, transport and building houses which makes labour force expensive. All money are just about hidden energy cost.
That cannot be the case. If all money was about hidden energy costs, energy would constitute more than 8% of the GDP. Embodied energy costs can only be about 8% of the cost of goods and services on average.
Embodied energy costs are not "hidden." They are listed in every industry. Anyone running a factory keeps track of energy costs. Everyone knows the cost of energy for lumber, steel, concrete, computer chips, potato chips and wood chips. You can look it up.
People are an abundant resource, but so is iron. Iron is the most common element. That does not mean that steel is cheaper than sand. It has to be mined and refined. People have to be trained in schools for 12 to 16 years, and fed, and taken care of. That costs a lot of money! It is bit like raising and training a seeing-eye guide dog. The dog is free. The training costs $59,000. See:
-
People are an abundant resource
My old business partner used to tell me the main reason Chinese goods were so cheap was that they were made out of dead bodies.
