Is Wind Worth It?

No one can deny the seriousness of interest in alternative energy. This dedication is leading to advances in technologies to make alternative energy economically efficient.

Most recently, Gizmag.com reported on a new wind turbine for the home. Weighing in at just 95 lbs (43 kg), it can be mounted on a pole, or a roof. The Honeywell Windgate wind turbine from EarthTronics is six feet across (1.8 m) and is able to generate power in wind speeds as low as 2 mph (3.2 kph).

These statistics are significant as most of the continental U.S. is in low wind areas making traditional wind turbines futile. The unit will go on sale with an MSRP of $4500, which is said to be a third of traditional wind turbines. Additional costs include the need for an automotive battery and a licensed electrician to hook the turbine into the house distribution panel. Mountain House Freeze-Dried Food

Do the numbers work? Will I put one up? Not yet. The turbine is said produce "...to up to 2000 kilowatt hours (kW) of power per year, which is about 15 percent of an average household’s energy needs." These numbers assume an average annual consumption of 13,333.33 kW hours. The average price per residential kW in the U.S. is $0.1138, thus making the annual average electric bill $1517.33. The wind turbine could reduce that amount by as much as $227.60 annually. Assuming only the cost of the turbine, it would take at least 19.77 years to get your money back. Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

The only thing that is making this turbine interesting is the prospect of a federal tax subsidy. The subsidy itself varies between 0-100% for the cost of the turbine alone, depending upon location. CNN reports the subsidy is 30%. Let's run the numbers again. With the 30% subsidy, the turbine now costs $3150 and would take 13.84 years to recoup the cost of the turbine alone. TGC Get 4 books for $1 each

In my personal opinion, this would not be on my list of capital expenditures. It would be close, as my new HVAC system is going to take 12 years for total payback. If you have $4500 and money for an electrician, you may want to do this. Of course, the elephant in the room is whether President Teleprompter and his Congressional sycophants are going to impose a "cap and trade" energy mega-tax. If that tax brings up the price of electricity, which it surely will, this wind turbine may be just the ticket.

For now, I am sticking with coal, natural gas and nuclear, as they provide the most consistent and least expensive power. If the economics of wind improves, I will certainly think about it.

Windmills and Solar Fail to Reduce Carbon Emissions

In what can be seen and judged as a triumph for the free market and an epic failure for government interference, Der Spiegel reports the following headline:

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

The story, authored by Anselm Waldermann, explains that the "greening" of German electricity, "Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year." Ok, not bad, but what's the catch?

It turns out the that carbon credit trading scheme hasn't accounted for any reduction in carbon emissions, and Waldermann places the blame on the EU-wide emissions trading system. As it turns out, the system determines the total amount of carbon output. However, it hasn't reduced that amount as new alternative energy plants are built. In other words, carbon credits are oversupplied. Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

So, now what, cries German climate-sensitive folks. Well, like most things bureaucrats design, they don't consider human nature. Companies aren't going to run and spend millions of share holders dollars to build windmills when they build a new coal plant cheaper. Mountain House Freeze-Dried Food

This story does have a happy ending! The German Green Party recognized that the best way to make this system work is to spend the money more efficiently. And here is the "A-HA!" moment:

"When reduction of CO2 emissions is more cheaply achieved through insulating a building than using a wind turbine, that is where we should concentrate our support."

And here is the chart that goes with the proverbial light bulb:

The Costs of CO2 Reduction
To reduce CO2 emissions by one ton, it costs (in euros):
Building Renovations (90% of cases) <0>100
Modernizing an old black-coal power plant 20
Reductions in industrial CO2 emissions >20
Replacing black coal with natural gas 28
Brown-coal power plant with carbon capture technology >30
Modernizing a new black-coal power plant 50
Replacing brown coal with natural gas 50
Black-coal power plant with carbon capture technology >50
Biomass >50
Biofuel >50
Wind Energy 50-60
Geothermal Energy >100
Solar Energy (Photovoltaic) 300-500
* A value less than zero indicates that the measure is actually profitable.
Sources: McKinsey, RWE, German Renewable Energy Federation

As one can clearly see, it doesn't make sense to spend tons of money to reduce carbon, rather, making simple changes is considerably more profitable. That is what business is all about. When a company can reduce costs and still deliver a high quality product, they will make a profit and share holders will be happy. In the words of Nelson Muntz, "HA-HA!"

Nuclear, French Style

Ah, the French. While I love to poke fun at them and their, um, French ways, I have to give them credit for their successful nuclear power program. There, I said it. The French do something right that isn't silly.

The New York Times ran a piece titled, "France Reaffirms Its Faith in Future of Nuclear Power" on August 17, 2008. In it, the explain how France got its act together, starting in the late 1950s, to be as close to energy independent as possible. The article states, "Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas." Certainly, this has helped smooth out many economic bumps experienced by those countries without such an aggressive nuclear policy. Additionally, think of how clean the air is without all of those coal plants?

Did I mention that nuclear power is clean, reliable, and cost effective? Here is where France really makes nuclear the best option: "He (senior aide to Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology, sustainable development and planning) said that France’s choice for a “closed fuel cycle” — reprocessing used nuclear fuel to recover plutonium made in the reactors so it can be reused — was safer." Too bad Jimmy Carter banned fuel reprocessing in the US. Spent fuel from first use has about 95% of its active ingredient left. Hey, recycling, what an idea!

Finally, the French discovered that having a successful power program is great for their economy. In some towns, the 60-year life cycle of a nuclear power plant, "...we have economic activity for two generations.”

Is Solar just Blowing Sunshine?

When initially deciding the four topics to start off my blog, I included solar because of its popularity. Solar energy is a very broad topic and this post is not intended to cover all possible aspects and applications of solar. Instead, I will focus on photovalic applications and not other more sophisticated uses, as many are still in the research phase.

In simple terms, photovalic modules are used to collect solar energy which is then transformed into electricity. This electricity can either be AC or DC. In some instances, such as calculators, garden lighting, and other applications with very low electrical requirements.

However, when compared with traditionally generated electric power, solar is not economically efficient. The US Department of Energy states:

"The cost of larger PV systems (greater than 1 kW) is measured in "levelized" costs per kWh—the costs are spread out over the system lifetime and divided by kWh output. The levelized cost is now around 30 cents/kWh." http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_quick_facts.html

As of January, 2008 the US average cost per kWh was 10.2 cents, well below the solar cost of 30 cents/kWh. Again, this figure comes from the US Department of Energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html



So, why is solar so popular? In many respects, it is the new, shiny toy. Also, there is the allure of "free" electricity. However, as the old adage states, "If its too good to be true, then it probably is." One has to recall that to convert one form of energy to another, there is loss. When one burns coal, heat is the main output, true also for any fuel that burns. What makes coal and fossil fuels in general, more efficient is that their combustion creates very high amounts of heat per unit. This heat is generally used to create steam, which then turns turbines (dynamos) to create electricity.

Solar has potential, but at today's cost points, it is only economically efficient in certain applications. Personally, I am renovating my home and looked into solar roofing shingles, as well as other PV collectors. In both cases, their cost well exceeded the benefits. However, a solar-powered attic fan may be just the thing.