Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

RoyLatham, thanks for the wonderful debate. 1) Backup costsPro wind energy needs 100% backup. Firstly, this isn't true as I have shown in the previous round. Wind energy skeptics often assume that a wind plant would need to be backed up with an equal amount of dispatchable generation. However, from a study done by the Utility Wind Interest Group, even at moderate wind penetrations, the need for additional generation to compensate for wind variations is substantially less than one-for-one and is often closer to zero [2].Secondly, the statement that 100% backup is required is illogical. Why would anyone build wind farms at all if 100% of the costs of conventional sources must be tacked on? However, we know that wind farms exist around the world and they are used extensively. Wind farms are built in coastal and relatively sparesely populated areas. In periods of strong winds, they generate more energy than the area in question consumes at the same time. During such times, the grid serves to transport the wind power over long distances [1]. So the excess wind is actually on the grid and is being transported. This significantly aids in providing backup and matches with the study from the Utility Wind Interest Group. 100% backup isn't required. This also solves Pro's problem of peak demands since the wind produced on cold nights can be transferred through the grid and effectively stored there by continuosly transferring it until demand rises again. I have effectively shown and sourced the backup costs of wind in my my calculations which include the backup costs. As Pro himself says in round 1, only 2/3 of the costs of fossil fuel generators are for capital and maintenance costs. The rest is for fuel which need not be included 100% of the time. Only the fuel used when we run out of wind energy must be used. Also, it must be noted that backup isn't required every time there is no wind, but only when all the electricity in the transmission lines has run out. The most backup that a wind farm would require is 25% [11]. 2) Wind Farm "Scam" Pro's source for his 3rd round argument is a book called the "Wind Farm Scam". This is where he gets his data on Texas and Spain. The book is highly inaccurate and is an emotional diatribe rather than a factual analysis of Wind energy. The author frequently calls them "wind monsters" and "twitching crucifixions of landscape". Most data referenced to this book is inaccurate and biased and cannot be taken seriously. [11]Pro says that the government predicts that wind energy will not be efficient in 2016. However, we are debating whether it will be efficient in 2021. 3) Generation costsPro says that since wind does not always reach the maximum capacity, we should say that the wind turbine can only be used 25% of the time at its peak value. But even after using my opponent's conservative estimates, it can be seen that wind energy is viable as I have shown. Pro asks why my calculations should be used above those of the German corporation Eon Netz. Firstly, Pro presents no anologous calculations from Eon Netz, just a statement which he got from a 2005 report which shows the challenges they face. Hoever, since Eon Netz is a successful company and is using even more wind energy now, they are finding ways to overcome these obstacles. Pro provides no reason why my calculations are wrong which I haven't already addressed in the previous round, neither does he explain why Eon Netz is still successful and are increasing their reliance on wind energy if it is so uneconomic. Pro says that large regions can drop offline below a wind speed of 7mph. I showed that it not the case. It is also very rare that wind speed drops below 7mph. The US Department of Energy shows that average wind speeds in Northern California, are between 19.7mph and 24.8mph at a height of 50m [3]. This is far from my opponent's 7mph below which the turbines generate no electricity. In fact, the US Department of Energy classifies the Wind Energy resource potential in Northern California as "superb". So, when my opponent says that my calculations don't match with that of the goverment's, it is not accurate. My calculations reinforce the US government's classification that there is great potential for Wind Energy in California and the United States. I have also shown that generation costs included not just the cost of the wind farms, but the land and the costs of installation as well.Pro has not shown through any source how the cost of electricity has been reliable for the past 30 years. I have shown that it increases at 2.5% a year [4]. This must be taken into account as we are debating not whether Wind Power is economical now but whether wind power will be economical in 10 years. As fossil fuels run out, electricity prices will increase very fast and we need renewable energy like wind in order to get cheap electricity. 4) Transmission costsMy opponent considers the fact that Wind Energy is produced outside of large metropolitan areas to be a disadvantage. I have shown that it is not the case as the Utility Wind Interest Group has shown through their studies that excess electricity can be transmitted [2]. Transmitting it effectively stores it while it is still being shipped and is on the grid. I have already proved that Wind Energy is economical after taking the transmission costs into account as well.Since electricity works by the formula of E = 1/2 * m * v^2, [5] when wind speed is high, tremendous amounts of energy can be developed and entered into the grid. 5) Environmental factorsPro's argument is overwhelmed by the fact that conventional power plants cause far more enviromental damage. Natural gas threatens ecosystems, drilling pollutes the coastal waters and the great lakes [6]. Coal plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer [7]. Disposal of Nuclear waste causes adverse effects on aquatic life whereas using spent fuel for weapons production increases the risk of proliferation [8].As for getting sued, natural gas power plants have been sued as well for violating clean air rules [9][10]. Getting sued is not specific to Wind Energy. 6) Offshore Wind FarmsCon says that the wind isn't reliable offshore, but I have shown above that it is not the case. The average wind speeds off the coast of Northern California range from 18-24mph whereas Pro requires them to be 7mph.Since a combination of onshore as well as offshore wind farms can be used, it does not require as much land area as Pro says, and the higher costs of offshore will be offset by the lower cost of onshore. I have also cited a study from a Stanford research group which shows many great locations for wind including the Farallon Islands, Berkeley Pier and Hunter's point. This also negates my opponent's point that good sites in California are rare. Just a look at the graph from the Department of Energy is enough to negate that contention [3].7) Economic ViabilityPro would like to use a utililty bond at 4% interest. The capital costs are 151.72 billion, the 4% interest would be 6 billion a year. The net profit is $11 billion a year after all the loans, backup costs, and inefficiencies are taken into account. In 14 years, the utilitity company can recoup their investment and make further profits of $11 billion a year for a further 11 years before they would need to replace their wind turbines. By then, they would have $121 billion. Keep in mind that every conceivable cost has already been taken care off. It can be seen that Wind Energy will not only be economic and profitable within 10 years but may be required now that fossil fuels are running out. All of Pro's problems have been addressed. The resolution is negated. Vote Con. Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://1.usa.gov...[4] http://1.usa.gov...[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bit.ly...[7] http://bit.ly...[8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly...[11] http://bit.ly...