just 6 years back and Coal power in UK made up 43% of british electricity mix.
So far in 2020 coal is less than 3%.
thank's to UK massive Expansion of renewables, like offshore wind power. And thanks to increase of less CO2 intensive natural gas.
And now 2 months without coal.
Cost of supporting offshore turbines drops to less than market price for electricity
This is really great - so that just watching of already standing wind plant turbines cost as much as generation electricity from fossil fuel plants.
Apparently the price of infrastructure building and recycling isn't still involved and I don't even try to ask, when it will finally pay itself.
And the article still doesn't tell, that wind plant electricity must be sold much cheaper than average market price of electricity.
Could we agree, that price of product or service expresses amount of net energy expenditure required for generation product or service?
To some extent it does, but the embodied energy cost of products varies tremendously. The embodied energy cost in aluminum foil, a steel girder, gravel or sand used in construction is high. Most of the cost is for energy; very little processing or labor is needed. The embodied energy cost of a silicon integrated circuit is vanishingly small. The silicon is made of sand, but unlike the construction site sand, it requires huge production costs with the most expensive machinery on earth (factories costing billions of dollars) and skilled workers.
A 50 lb bag of sand costs $4, retail. An 8 GB silicon chip costs about $30. It is made of plastic and sand, weighs less than 30 g, and probably has less than 1 g of sand (silicon) in it. So the embodied cost of energy for the sand is roughly $4 / 22680 = $0.0002, or 0.00007% of the cost. It takes energy to fabricate the chip, but hardly any to make the raw material (sand and plastic). Semiconductor fab plants use a lot of energy, although the amount of embodied energy they add per chip is small. They use $1 to $2 million per month. There 94 fab plants in the world, so that's about $188 million per month, worst case. Semiconductor sales worldwide are around $412 billion, so the embodied energy is roughly 0.5% of the cost. Probably less.
https://www.smartwatt.com/semi…ng-away-at-wasted-energy/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44544.pdf
The embodied energy in a Diesel generator is modest. The energy payback time is a few weeks. The embodied energy in a wind turbine is higher. The energy payback time is 3 to 6 months. The embodied energy in a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam is enormous. It takes years to pay back.
If the only cost of a product was embodied energy, your point would be valid. But there are many other costs such as labor, and they vary tremendously.
Well - it doesn't matter if your technology consumes an energy in form of raw source mining & purification, or let say in form of energy required for keeping living standard of labour force or let say in form of energy required for development and maintenance of computer control of renewable plants at distance. It's all the same energy and it must be generated somehow by burning of something else.
Guess which one it is...
QuoteSemiconductor sales worldwide are around $412 billion, so the embodied energy is roughly 0.5% of the cost. Probably less.
The embodied energy content of computer is expressed by its end price. Every clerk selling computers over counter consumes an energy and his rebate expresses this - this is the principle of TCO concept. Even marketing of computers consumes lotta energy - believe it or not... and someone has to pay it. And yes, it's You - with retail price of Your computer.
The embodied energy content of computer is expressed by its end price.
Yes. But it is a very, very small fraction of the total cost. A few dollars, for a machine that costs hundreds of dollars. Most of the cost of computer is for the semiconductor chips and the hard disk, and the embodied energy in them is ~0.5% of the cost, as I said. Look up the cost of a build-it-yourself computer. The motherboard and disk are most of the cost. The cabinet, power supply and other components cost practically nothing.
Every clerk selling computers over counter consumes an energy and his rebate expresses this - this is the principle of TCO concept.
The cost of paying the clerk and the rent is FAR higher than the cost of overhead lights, cash registers and computers in the store. If you have ever run a business, you would know that. Actually, I buy my computer stuff from places like Amazon, which have no clerks. The energy cost of the internet interaction nowadays is incredibly cheap per gigabyte. That is why the U.S. landline owners are bothered by tens of millions of telephone spam calls per day from India. Because the calls cost practically nothing. Even though the response rate is low, they can afford to make ~32 million calls per day.
Even marketing of computers consumes lotta energy - believe it or not... and someone has to pay it. And yes, it's You - with retail price of Your computer.
No, marketing costs little.
Look here, have some common sense. Look at the big picture. In the U.S., all energy costs combined are 6% of the GDP. So, the combined embodied energy for every product, every good and service sold, every mile driven, and every government and military action cannot be more than 6%. It is 0.5% in computer chips, and probably more like 90% of the cost of steel or gravel. It varies so much, your point is meaningless. But the total is 6% for everything, which is far less than the embodied cost of labor (58% - https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2…ng-the-us-labor-share.htm), or healthcare, for that matter.
QuoteNo, marketing costs little.
Well, it depends - it's about 15% for iPhone, for example.. But it actually doesn't matter how high it really is - my point was different and that is retail price (without subsidizes, mandates, incentives, etc..) expresses the energy embodiment of product. Which is also why USA have largest carbon footprint per citizen from all countries, despite they have modest coal share. They're simply expensive.
Another example: it doesn't matter how cheap aspirin actually is and how little energy it requires by itself: once it cannot be obtained by another cheaper way, then all this overhead cost contributes to its total cost of ownership and energy footprint as well.
Well, it depends - it's about 15% for iPhone, for example.. But it actually doesn't matter how high it really is - my point was different and that retail price (without subsidizes, mandates, incentives, etc..) expresses the energy embodiment of product.
Yes, they do express the energy embodiment, but you cannot go from the price to the energy embodiment, because you do not know what fraction of the price is for energy, and what fraction is for labor, the equipment needed to make the product, and other cost components. You know that you are paying for embodied energy when you buy a 50 lb bag of sand. It is a lot of the cost. When you buy a computer chip, it is a tiny fraction of the cost.
It depends, as you say. Why are you arguing with yourself? You agree it depends. It is not difficult to find out that the embodied energy in a wind turbine is low, and the energy payback time is short. After payback, it is all gravy. Unlike a coal or natural gas generator, there are virtually no more energy inputs. There is no continuing energy overhead with wind or solar. No mining, refining or transporting fuel (coal or gas). There is only the recycling cost at end of life, which is no higher for wind than for coal or natural gas generators.
Quotebecause you do not know what fraction of the price is for energy, and what fraction is for labor, the equipment needed to make the product, and other cost components.
At first I know about it, because I know that direct energy input represents let say eight months of wind plant life-time, but the retail cost of its energy indicates, it's higher than cost of fossil fuel energy and it takes whole rest of wind plant lifetime. All the rest is thus represented with another costs components, which are always spent together and they cannot be separated. And this is just the problem: the wind plant as such may be relatively cheap - but it still requires extensive infrastructure and backup and who knows what else, the energy expenditure of which must be generated in some other way - and it can not be separated.
QuoteIt is not difficult to find out that the embodied energy in a wind turbine is low
If it's so low, why just the maintenance of wind plant remains comparable with cost of fossil fuel electricity? I don't want to pay for it. Let the proponents of renewables pay it instead of me. I want to pay only the "real embodied energy content" of wind plant - this is fair enough for me. I'm willing to pay only first six-eight months of wind plant electricity - nothing more.
Problem solved.
And the article still doesn't tell, that wind plant electricity must be sold much cheaper than average market price of electricity.
No, it "must " not.
These are private companies offering the UK government a price of power at Long term agreements.
And the UK government of course choose the cheapest ones.
And still the private companies make a profit, which typically is 8 to 10%.
And they are obligated to remove the turbines at end of life after some 30 years.
So it is a win win for everyone.
And The required back up you complain about is simply enough the existing coal and gas fired plants that just is uses less as wind power grows. We do not need to build New fossil fuel plants when we add renewables.
At first I know about it, because I know that direct energy input represents let say eight months of wind plant life-time, but the retail cost of its energy indicates, it's higher than cost of fossil fuel energy and it takes whole rest of wind plant lifetime. All the rest is thus represented with another costs components, which are always spent together and they cannot be separated.
Nonsense
This is really great - so that just watching of already standing wind plant turbines cost as much as generation electricity from fossil fuel plants.
Apparently the price of infrastructure building and recycling isn't still involved and I don't even try to ask, when it will finally pay itself.
These are built with private finance, and they get an agreed price for electricity, and they make good profits. That's how they get paid for.
At first I know about it, because I know that direct energy input represents let say eight months of wind plant life-time, but the retail cost of its energy indicates, it's higher than cost of fossil fuel energy and it takes whole rest of wind plant lifetime.
No, it is not higher than the cost of fossil fuel energy. It is less than the cost of coal, and about the same as natural gas. It does not take the rest of the wind turbine lifetime. There is no energy input to a wind turbine. It is all output, like hydroelectricity. There is energy input with coal, natural gas or nuclear power. Things like pumps have to be run. With coal you need to run coal mining machinery and railroad trains the whole time the plant operates. This is energy overhead. There is no energy overhead with wind or hydroelectricity. Zero. None. Bupkis. You may imagine there is, but you are wrong.
[It is not difficult to find out that the embodied energy in a wind turbine is low]
If it's so low, why just the maintenance of wind plant remains comparable with cost of fossil fuel electricity?
Because a generator is a generator. What spins it -- steam, water or wind -- makes little difference. It still requires about the same amount of maintenance.
It has nothing to do with embodied energy.
Frankly, that is a weird question. It is like asking, "why do I have to change the tires on an electric car as often as I do with a gasoline car?" Because tires are tires. Except in England, where they are tyres.
QuoteThere is no energy overhead with wind or hydroelectricity. Zero. None. Bupkis.
So why I should pay it? Why wind plant operators won't pay it itself from surplus of energy, which wind plant allegedly generates after first six-eight months for free? They should generate clean profit after this payback period. They did use existing plant infrastructure, so they should return all subsidizes - instead of this they ask another ones? They don't make enough of money even for wind plant scrapping and recycling. Which is understandable, because just the cost of maintenance of wind plants gets comparable with price of fossil fuel energy.
Where wind plants should generate money for their construction and recycling under such a situation? They're loss making project from their very beginning.
Another example: it doesn't matter how cheap aspirin actually is and how little energy
I guess aspirin as not an alternative to fossil fuels. due to its high Zephyrian embodied energy. cost
What bothers me is that the environmental costs are not shown in the purely financial analysis.
Those environmental costs can be enormous..
I once worked on an opencast coal mining project in a peat swamp called Ohinewai.. which was going to make a huge hole in the ground
next to a major river ... the environmental costs were always downplayed by the dinosaur State Coal engineers.. eventually the dinosaur engineers
became extinct.. the NZ govt sold the assets for the company for a pitttance in 2015.. .. now geothermal steam has replaced coal..
however these dinosaurs still survive in the badlands of Alberta generating a trillion litres of tailings
waste which ther dinosaur brains have no idea how to rehabiltate..
The cost of the cleanup is estimated at 300 billion $... which is not factored into the oil price.
When the dinosaurs become extinct their tailings will remain the same , a Canadian memorial to dinosaur intelligence.
QuoteThose environmental costs can be enormous
Once wind plants require the same amount of embodied energy just for their maintenance like coal plants, then their environmental cost must be comparable. For example one Google query
consumes energy which corresponds burning 0.2g of carbon. Do you believe that such an energy doesn't load environment just because Google doesn't burn any coal - it just consumes electricity?
then their environmental cost must be comparable.
Do you believe that such an energy doesn't load environment
Yes i believe that the environmental damage of coal and oilsand derived electricty far outweighs that of wind derived energy
. unless Zephir intelligience supples numerical data quantifying the environmental damage of wind turbines due to Zephirian embodied energy,,
Zephirian Aspirin-google discourse appears to be endlessly renewable...but appears to have lightweight embodiment.
So why I should pay it? Why wind plant operators won't pay it itself from surplus of energy, which wind plant allegedly generates after first six-eight months for free? They should generate clean profit after this payback period. They did use existing plant infrastructure, so they should return all subsidizes - instead of this they ask another ones? They don't make enough of money even for wind plant scrapping and recycling. Which is understandable, because just the cost of maintenance of wind plants gets comparable with price of fossil fuel energy
what are you trying to say?
Do you think private companies would give the power for free if they had a zero point energy source? Will never happen whatever source. They will need to build systems to deliver the power to the grid and will need to make profit, that is how the world work.
But power will become cheaper as seen with solar and wind since they are cheaper to manufacture and have LOWER maintenance cost than coal power.
Scrapping and recycling must be included in the contract. And europe has stricter environmental laws than US, So we do recycle. Search Veolia company and read about it.
So, you are completely wrong on maintenance costs. The low power price offered from wind cover all costs AND make them a profit.
