Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

The US Department of Energy classifies the potential for wind energy on the coast of Northern California as "superb" [4].The average wind speed is given as between 19.7 to 24.8 miles per hour. My opponent worries about how to get backup power when the wind speed is less than 7 miles per hour. However, it can be seen that the wind speeds are much higher. I will go into more detail later about offshore wind energy.I thank my opponent for his response. Pro's main argument is that my calculations have overestimated capacity while underestimating price. In this round I will refute my opponents arguments and then explain the calculations is more detail to address my opponent's concerns and show how wind energy can be economical within 10 years.1) 100% Backup powerMy opponent incorrectly assumes that wind requires 100% backup power. According to a study by the utility wind interest group: “the results to date also lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with an equal amount of dispatchable generation. It is now clear that, 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” [5]. The cost of backup is around $76 per MWh of wind including the cost of the generator, generating costs, and even adding tax credits on top the cost[6]. This would make it $76 * 100 * 165,000 = 12.5 billion for the entire 165,000GWh required for the year. This is not very high at all.Another good way to get backup is to use Solar Energy. Solar energy can be used to backup wind energy as when wind doesn't blow, it is usually because it is hot which is a good scenario for solar energy. Solar and wind energy can complement each other providing backup for when one is not available.2) Capital costsThe information from my source says that it costs 3.5 million for 2MW, not 1MW so it is actually 1.75 million per MW [1]. My opponent says that the most amount of watt-hours that can be achieved is 25%, not 40%. My opponent makes very conservative estimates but let's go with that for now. So we have 1.75 million per MW that is 8.7GWh per year or $33.2 billion for 165,000 GWh. If the rating that can be achieved is only 25% as my opponent says, then the price will be $132 billion in capital costs. It is a little higher but not as high as my opponent says.3) Transmission costsMy costs of transmission assumed that the power lines can only be used at 40% capacity. I don't assume that the transmission lines will appear when needed and disappear when not needed. I added the transmission costs to generate about 412,000 GWh per year while calculating the price. I then assumed that the transmission will only be used 40% of the time giving a total figure of $14.12 billion for 165,000GWh. So, this calculation was entirely accurate. It assumed that power can be transmitted only 40% of the time yet the cost will need to be paid for, 100% of the time exactly as Pro asserted. I will show later how despite this extra cost, wind energy is still practical.4) Other costs (Land Area, Noise, and closure in winter)Offshore wind farms easily solve all of these problems that my opponent mentioned. There is no requirement to buy land, as it can be done at sea. The speed of the wind offshore is usually faster than nearby sites onshore [2]. This solves my opponent's wind speed problem as well. While offshore wind farms may cost more, this is only due to construction costs [2] and so it will be a one-time investment to create a floating bed or to create a platform that is anchored to the seabed. Once this is done, 25 years later when the wind turbines need to be replaced, there will be no extra cost to installing them offshore since a land platform has already been built and the installation costs would be the same as that on land.With many wind farms offshore, the need to buy a lot of land decreases as well leading to savings which can be invested in the construction of offshore platforms.Total ViabilityThe total costs are now $132 billion for building and installing, $14.12 billion for transmission, $12.5 billion for backup costs and $5.6 billion for land costs. The initial cost would be $151.72 billion in start up costs adding up the costs for building, land, and transmission. Transmission is added here because most of the transmission cost for wind is due to building the infrastructure necessary. Once the infrastructure is in place, the actual costs of transmission would be much lower. The total estimated costs per year would be $12.5 billion for backup costs.If electricity produced from wind is sold at 17.81c per kWh and 165,000 GWh of electricity is sold, the total revenue to the industry in 2021 will be $29.4 billion. Since additional costs are required for backup, the net profit can be estimated to be about $16.9 billion per year. The initial investment can still be recouped in just 9 years even with my opponent's conservative estimates. Now, my opponent says that the wind turbines only need to be replaced every 25 years. It can easily be seen that investing in wind and selling it at the same price as electricity from other sources is immensely profitable.Many lenders now do 0% financing and as long as the wind companies have a high credit score, they can get money from a bank and easily pay it off in 9 years. After than they can profit for the next 16 years before needing to buy new wind turbines.Sources[1] http://www.windustry.org...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://www1.eere.energy.gov...[4] http://www1.eere.energy.gov...[5] http://www.windaction.org...[6] http://www.futurepundit.com...