Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

I think we have surfaced many issues important to the economics of wind power, and that readers willfind the debate informative. 100% backup is required for wind energy When the wind drops below 7 mph, wind turbines produce no energy and a backup system must take over to produce the power needed by consumers. So, is it true that even over large regions the wind can fall below the required levels? The evidence includes the flat statement of one of the largest managers of wind energy that "Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times. " In addition I cited examples in Texas ( wind power dropped from 1700 MW to 300 MW in ten minutes) and Spain ("a drop in the wind reduced the power output of 11,000 windmills by 700 MW") where the wind died suddenly so as to threaten blackouts. It's also common knowledge that the wind never blows continuously; it depends upon the weather. To make matters worse, wind energy peaks on winter nights, when demand for electricity is least. Con did not rebut that point. Did my opponent ever cite data from any place in the world showing completely reliable winds? He did not. If any such thing existed, it would be cited by every proponent of wind energy. I have never seen the claim made. 100% backup is needed, which means that a generator system of equal capacity must be built and kept running on line. All that is saved relative to letting the backup system serve as the primary power source is that some of the fuel costs are lowered. Since capital costs dominate, the backup costs 90% of what it would cost to generate all the power. However, Con admits that in addition new transmission lines must be built and will only be used at 40% of capacity at most, and only about 25% in California. On top of the extra transmission line cost, complex expensive load management equipment must be installed to transfer the load back and forth from wind to the backup system. Because the backup,transmission, and switching costs, wind energy cannot be competitive even if it were free. Basic wind energy generation costs are not favorableWind energy advocates always assume that the backup power will come from the power grid at no cost. When wind is generating 0.1% of the load, it's likely the grid will have enough spare capacity to avoid blackouts when the wind dies. As shown by the examples in Texas and Spain, that's not a valid assumption if the wind power is a substantial contributor to the energy in a region. Still, how would wind energy economics look if the backup costs are ignored? We have two authoritative sources that have done projections. The U. S. government's Energy Information Agency predicts that in 2016 wind power will still be 49% to 77% more expensive than electricity from either coal or natural gas. Separately, investor T. Boone Pickens has given up on his large investments in wind energy, saying in cannot compete with cheap natural gas prices. Pickens has the financial incentive to try to cash in on his investment, but he cannot make the numbers work. Con does his own calculations to produce the results that neither the Government or Pickens can sustain. Con makes many errors in his calculations. One is to assume a greatly inflated price for electricity as the baseline for comparison. Con does not deny that electricity can be generated by natural gas and delivered for 11 cents per KWh. California has among the highest electric prices in the US because they require that huge sums be spent on uneconomic wind and solar power. A ground rule of our debate is that we are to compare free market prices, not prices that include government-mandated waste. Moreover, Con assumes electricity prices will inflate. Electricity prices were stable for thirty years before green mandates where introduced in the last decade. Vast new supplies of natural gas from horizontal drilling are likely to drive free market prices down. That's what Pickens concluded when he abandoned wind power investment. In any case, if there is inflation in in non-wind power, wind energy will suffer 90% of that in the cost of the backup system. Con ignored the inflation cost reflected in the backup. Offshore wind power is too expensiveCon offers offshore wind power to solve the cost and backup problems. If wind were reliable offshore, sailing ships would still be used for reliable transportation on the coasts. The wind is as capable of dying off the coasts as it is anywhere else. Con cites the high average wind speeds, and that helps total energy production even though it does nothing for the backup costs. However, while there are good average winds offshore, the cost of erecting wind towers in ocean waters and running high voltage cables underwater more than offsets the extra energy production. Offshore wind costs 35 cents per KWh ("Study tilts at offshore windmills”, Newsday, November 4, 2010) before adding the backup and switching costs. the high costs have deferred other offshore wind projects. . http://www.watertowndailytimes.com...To complete his calculations, Con ignores capital costs, saying "Many lenders now do 0% financing. .. " There is not a chance of getting free money; utilities sell bonds paying 4% interest rates to obtain money. . http://finance.yahoo.com... With offshore wind so expensive as to be not viable, Con has not addressed how 11,000 square miles of suitable wind sites will be found in California, when the wind energy map shows few good locations. Con has shown no reason why his calculations should be accepted and those the US government and T. Boone Pickens rejected. Even without the backup costs, wind power will not be economic within the foreseeable future. Environmental Cost RisksThe Alamonte Pass wind farm, one of the largest in the nation and a model selected for our debate, is shut down for the winter season to reduce the kills of migrating birds. Protection of endangered species is not subject to analysis of costs and benefits, the projects are shut down by court order regardless of the harm caused. Con has not contested those facts. Con first replied that all energy projects are subject to lawsuit. I then pointed out that endangered species laws are uniquely powerful, and I challenged Con to cite similar potentials for shutdowns in conventional power plants. Con did not reply and dropped the environmental cost risk entirely. Wind farms are especially susceptible to legal challenges because they cover vast areas; 11,000 square miles would be required for California. That makes the probability of damage to endangered birds, bats, or other creatures a near certainty. If the noise from the turbines might bother a land species, the project must be halted. Conventional power plants have a very small footprint by comparison, so there is must less risk to start with. Wind turbines are of course uniquely capable of killing winged creatures. SummaryThe backup and switching costs alone guarantee that wind power will not be economical for the next ten years. The Basic wind power generation costs, as projected by the Government and by investor Pickens, show wind power to be unlikely to be economical for the next decade independent of the backup costs. Finally, the legal risks of having large projects shut down due to the hazards to endangered species makes the economics not viable. The risk of shutdown cannot be insured. For these reasons the resolution is affirmed. Note that the Pro position is that the economics of wind power have less than a fifty-fifty chance of being economic within ten years. That's a bit of a confusing double negative, but Pro is for the case of wind power not being economic.