Re: Energy Policy

Reply to Don: Wind energy is very close to being economically competitive with
fossil fuel - (FF) - based electricity generation today and is already less
costly than nuclear-based electricity. And we need to remember that FF based
technologies use the atmosphere more or less free of charge as a waste-disposal
site. If the cost of these technologies included the cost of cleaning up their
emissions to the same level that is achieved by wind- based electrical
generation, there would be absolutely no question about which technology would
be less costly. Unfortunately, the current "Clean Skies" initiative appears to
relax FF emissions to the atmosphere - especially for coal the dirtiest of the
FFs. So this again gives coal-based generation a financial advantage from which
wind generation does not benefit. So I have no difficulty in justifying some
tax concessions to the wind energy businesses - we already have massive
environmental concessions to the FF-based energy technologies.
The one key limitation for wind energy is its sporadic availability, which
requires that there be a reliable back-up energy supply system in place for
when the wind is not blowing. This really implies that we will need two energy
systems in place - one which will ensure an energy supply when the wind is not
available - and the other a wind system which is environmentally benign in
terms of atmospheric emissions. Of course, when the wind is blowing, the
back-up system will presumably be running at far less than capacity and this
will jack up energy costs for everyone. I don't know of a way around this
problem.
Don also points to the aesthetic problem associated with a plethora of large
wind generators spread across the landscape. I would just point out that we
already have a plethora of unsightly structures spread across our landscape
(electric power poles - with wires, high voltage transmission lines, electronic
communications towers, smoke stacks, etc). We seem to have gotten used to such
structures and while one hears are local complaints from time to time, there is
no ground swell of opinion to banish such structures. To my eyes, a wind
generator is inherently less ugly than these other structures. I suspect that
with careful siting the aesthetic problems associated with wind generators can
also be managed.
I do, of course, recognize that this is a serious issue. Because of the low
energy density of wind, to replace the electricity generated by a single 1,000
MWe coal fired power plant (operating capacity about 80%), one would need about
3,000 one MWe (a typical commercial land-based size - operating capacity about
25-30%) to get the same amount of electricity).
So while I think wind can make a substantial contribution to our energy supply
system, it by no means can be the only technology we develop.
A very fine wind energy website is
http://www.windpower.org/en/core.htm
a Danish-maintained site.
ken piers

>>> "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com> 12/13/2003 3:56:11 AM >>>
Al Koop wrote:

KP: 2. A significant increase in support for wind energy installations -
the
"renewable" technology that has the most going for it.

AK: From what I know it is cheap and competitive now. We should build
as many windmills as possible. The problems are that wind requires a
backup since it is not available on demand, plus the total power that
could be generated won?t come close to meeting the needs of everyone.

In California we have lots of windmill farms. To see a hundred or so
windmills all spinning at their varying rates is novel and interesting, maybe
even pretty. But they get old fast. To see thousands of them covering all
suitable hills and ridges is not so nice. Most people I know regard them as a
blight. I've also heard repeated rumors that they would not be a profitable
source of electricity without the special incentives government offers, and
that people invest in them primarily to take the tax write-offs. Maybe you
know whether or not those things are true.

KP: 3. An increase in support for "hybrid" transportation vehicles -
(gasoline -
electrical)

AK: We have the Honda Civic and Toyota Prius on the roads now. If we
had the political impetus we could have had vehicles right now getting
an average of 40 miles per gallon. The political situation mentioned
above has ruled this out. We need a crisis to get most people driving a
hybrid and even then it will take a long time to switch the
infrastructure of the manufacturing process to build the hybrids and to
phase out the total gas vehicles present today.

One positive indicator is that, where I live, the waiting lists for such cars
are long. We can't get enough of them, even though the manufacturers are
tacking a premium onto prices because of the demand. Evaluations I've read
indicate that at today's fuel prices owners will not come out ahead financially
because of the high initial capital outlay required. Of course, vehicle prices
should come down with time and mass production.

Don
Received on Mon Dec 15 10:23:41 2003