Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

100% backup is required for wind energy Wind energy is unlikely to be a competitive source of grid power within ten years because its unreliability requires 100% backup. The wind can die at any time, so there has to be a ready source of generating capacity on line to replace the wind power. The cost of the backup must be attributed to the wind system because it otherwise would not be required. One of the world's largest managers of wind energy, Germany's Eon Netz, acknowledges the implications: "Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. 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." http://www.windaction.org... Backup is requied to meet peak demands, during hot summer days. "Wind speed is one critical factor in determining the amount of electricity produced and wind speed varies widely with stronger wind tending to occur at night and in colder months." http://www.windaction.org... That's completely at odds with the peaks. Backup is essential, It's rare when wind advocates acknowledge the backup cost. Most of the time, they assume that ratepayers will absorb the cost without attributing it to the use of wind energy. The backup system must be capable of being spun up quickly, which in practice means that extra natural gas powered turbine generators must be on line. About two-thirds of the cost of fossil fuel generators is in the capital and maintenance costs, with only a third in fuel. Suppose a wind farm with a one gigawatt output is built to supply a city. To have an average output of a gigawatt, the rated output would have to be 2.5 to 5 gigawatts, because wind only ocasional reacs the maximum. Under ideal conditions, the wind farm will be producing 40% of the time. In practice, it's closer to 20%. The gas turbine will be producing at least 60% of the electricity, so at least 60% of the fuel the turbine would consume without the wind farm will be consumed anyway, The average cost of electric power in the US is about 11 cents per kilowatt hour. Roughly 4 cents of the delivered cost is in transmission and distribution, with 7 cents in generation. That makes the cost of the backup for the wind system to be: .67x 7 (capital cost) + .33 x .60 x 7 (fuel cost) + 4 (transmission/distribution) = 10.1 cents Only 40% of the fuel was saved by having the one gigawatt wind farm, amounting to 0.9 cent. For wind to be economic, its total delivered cost must be less than one cent per kilowatt hour. The need for 100% backup never goes away because the wind will always go calm from time to time. Transmission costs double Actually, the economics of wind power are worse than that. Wind power systems can only be put in favorable locations, generally not near the major metropolitan areas they serve. That means a new transmission line must be run from the wind farm to the city, That line will average at most 40% of its capacity, with no energy transmission in calm weather and full capacity in heavy winds. In addition to the new transmission line, a sophisticated control system must implemented to control the backup generators to exactly match the power demand as the wind energy output varies minute-by-minute and hour-by-hour. Wind advocates usually assume that ratepayers won't identify the extra costs as associated with the use of wind farms, so they generally ignore the extra costs. Since the efficiency of the transmission system is reduced by half, a ball park estimate is that the cost will double from four cents to eight cents. That assumes that something is saved by not having to duplicate the local system, but that the control costs added match that savings. I estimated transmission and distribution costs from the electric rates in Idaho, where the generation is very cheap hydroelectric power, accounting for two or three cents, at most, of the 7 cent rate. I put transmission at 4 cents. Wind energy generation cost + 14.1 cents must be less than 11 cents for wind energy to be economic. That's impossible. Suppose that in ten years, the cost of natural gas increases dramatically. That means the backup cost will increase dramatically as well. Transmission costs are not likely decrease, but if they do, the competition cost will also decrease. Basic wind energy generation costs are not favorable "The 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. Furthermore, because wind turbines work only when the wind blows, wind farms cannot replace conventional plants. Backup power from conventional sources, usually gas turbines, must be ready to come on line the moment the wind fails." http://www.masterresource.org... Noted investor T. Boone Pickens has given up on his large investments in wind energy, saying in cannot compete with cheap natural gas prices. New horizontal drilling technology has greatly increased the availability of gas and lowered its price. As is conventional for wind energy projects, Pickens ignored backup and transmission costs, prospects were evaluated on the base generation costs. http://www.santangelsreview.com... Additional cost risks of wind energy The Altamont Pass wind farm near San Francisco was sued by environmentalists and ultimately force to shut down during the winter months to reduce the deaths of migrating birds. http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org... US laws allow anyone to sue under the Endangered Species Act, and a judge can shut down any project if there is any potential harm to endangered species. There is no cost-benefit analysis, and any environmentalist can sue. This poses and extraordinary cost risk to investors. So far, the federal government has been funding wind energy projects, either directly or through government mandates on utilities. Our debate assumes free market competition, where the risk of losing an investment would make wind energy impractical. The insurance costs against shutdown would be prohibitive. Wind farms cover enormous areas. The Altamont Pass wind farm covers 78 square miles and produces only .125 GW. http://www.mercurynews.com... (A nuclear plant produces 3 GW on six sq. miles.) The large area implies intrusion on human habitation. That leads to turbine noise problems. "Perhaps most crucially, wind advocates rarely acknowledge that turbine noise is often 10 dB louder than background sound levels (sometimes even 20 dB or more); acousticians have long known that any increase over 5 dB begins to trigger complaints, with 10dB the threshold for widespread problems." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com... Wind farm builders will have to buy expensive properties or buy off the people who live there. ------------------- Wind energy is not economic. The need for backup, long transmission lines, complex controls, and large areas, are inherent in the nature of wind. Wind is not going to be competitive within ten years, if ever.