http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11
The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.
How much cheaper and more efficient is it than Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil?
My guess is that it's less than 0.05 times cheaper and efficient
From article:
NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology.
I'll admit I didn't read the article, BUT
This pie in the sky pro forma bullshit from some "green energy" website hardly answers my question.
I think those numbers are based on non-reality and include "environmental costs" and the cost to build a new coal plant. I googled "price of coal per mwh" and got results well below $90 (which included those other costs).
Surprisingly, it's hard to find any data on the cost of coal from a source that isn't pushing green energy. This leads me to believe coal is even cheaper than I originally thought.
Either way, it doesn't include gas or oil.
Who in their right mind would not figure in the cost of building a coal plant when determining the cost of coal power?
1) if it's already built, you don't have to build one
2) it's a green energy persons point of view as to the cost, complete with carbon catching equipment and storage, not an actual reflection of the cost
I wonder what Citgo has to say about the cost of wind energy . . . hmmmmm
I feel like I'm teaching a class on how to count and the students keep asking why the "2" is shaped the way it is. This is really rough ridin' pathetic.
