Excuse me?
In conflicting articles, Bloomberg tries to get its arms around the race between Wind power and Natural Gas. The two have been neck and neck leaders for most new electrical capacity, with solar coming up on the outside.
Wind power in the U.S. is on a respirator.
The $14 billion industry, the world’s second-largest buyer of wind turbines, is reeling from a double blow — cheap natural gas unleashed by the hydraulic fracturing revolution and the death last year of federal subsidies that made wind the most competitive of all renewable energy sources in the U.S.
Without restoration of subsidies, worth $23 per megawatt hour to turbine owners, the industry may not recover, and the U.S. may lose ground in its race to reduce dependence on the fossil fuels driving global warming, say wind-power advocates.
They place the subsidy argument in the context of fairness, pointing out that wind’s chief fossil-fuel rival, the gas industry, is aided by the ability to form master limited partnerships that allow pipeline operators to avoid paying income tax. This helps drive down the cost of natural gas.
“Cheap gas has definitely made it harder to compete,” said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy Inc., which builds both gas and renewable power plants. He said that with the subsidy, companies were able to propose wind projects “below the price of gas.”
Both wind and gas cost about $84 a megawatt hour to install worldwide, excluding subsidies, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s 3 percent higher than a coal-fired power plant costs and about half that of nuclear reactors.
Wind was responsible for 4.8 percent of America’s electricity used in January. That’s the highest January total ever, breaking the record from last January, which broke the record for the January before that, and so on. The chart below shows the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Association.
America’s rising wind power feels unstoppable. That’s because in many areas of the country wind has reached an important tipping point: becoming cheaper than coal and natural gas. In fact, states getting the most electricity from wind include gas-rich Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado.
Onshore wind power has come of age, and not just in the U.S. This next chart shows the levelized cost of energy worldwide, using data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Average onshore wind power now costs the same as gas worldwide, at about $84 per megawatt hour. That’s without subsidies.
In the U.S., competition between wind and gas is fierce. New techniques known as fracking (or hydraulic fracturing for the timid) have overhauled the U.S. energy economy and brought America some of the cheapest natural gas prices in the world. In order to compete, U.S. wind relied on a tax credit, which expired at the end of last year.Even without the subsidy, wind prices are getting cheaper as the technology improves. The cost of wind energy has declined by 43 percent over the last four years. There’s a backlog of projects that already qualified for the tax credit that will ensure a steady pace of turbine growth for the next few years, according to BNEF wind analyst Amy Grace.
The future of the wind tax credit is contentious and uncertain, but so is America’s cheap gas prices. As expensive coal plants are retired, utilities are switching to cheaper natural gas, driving up the price, says Grace. Also, the U.S. Energy Department is opening up domestic gas for exports for the first time. By 2020, U.S. shale gas may account for 20 percent of the global market, according to a Citigroup estimate.
If Americans have to buy gas anywhere near international market prices, wind wins. Gas may be booming, but you can expect many more wind records to come.
The export gas rush is on. From the Pacific Northwest to the Mid-Atlantic to the Gulf states, companies are moving forward with plans to export U.S. natural gas despite controversy over the impact on prices and pollution.
Russia’s incursion into Crimea has intensified pressure on the Obama administration to expedite approvals for export facilities. Some members of Congress say U.S. exports can weaken Russia’s hold on the Ukraine, which depends heavily on Russia for natural gas. Others doubt they’d give the U.S. geopolitical leverage — at least not anytime soon.
The export quandary is relatively new for the USA. Until only a few years ago, the country was importing a sizable share of natural gas, and companies were seeking to build import — not export — terminals.
–“We have crossed a line into an era when we could be massively exporting America’s natural gas, sending the jobs and consumer benefits abroad along with the fuel,” Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said last month, predicting higher domestic prices. “The level of exports approved is now more than every single American home consumes.”
“The propane crisis this winter was a cautionary tale of going too far too fast,” says Trent Duffy, spokesman of America’s Energy Advantage, a group of manufacturers including Dow Chemical that oppose LNG exports to non-FTA countries. He notes propane prices soared, because companies were exporting a record amount at a time when a cold winter increased U.S. demand.
Duffy says LNG exports could hike manufacturing costs and hurt the U.S. economy. Assuming a large volume of exports, a December 2013 Dow-funded study by Charles Rivers Associates predicts domestic natural gas prices could almost triple by 2030.
Mark Ruffalo in Huffington Post:
But let’s be clear about three things.
First, this push for exports has nothing to do with the crisis in Ukraine. Even if LNG exports approvals are fast tracked, there is currently no infrastructure to export the gas until at least 2016. This push reflects an industry agenda that existed before the crisis erupted in Ukraine, and under no circumstances can LNG exports help alleviate it.
Second, once the infrastructure is built, U.S. LNG exports will likely go to Asia, where industry can fetch the highest price, not to Europe. The legislation under discussion would deem all exports in the public interest if the gas is sent to a member nation of the WTO. This includes most countries in the world, including China, India, Japan, Brazil and, ironically, Russia. The oil and gas industry wants these export approvals to drive up their profit margins by selling gas overseas, which ultimately will increase the price of gas for U.S. consumers.
Third, exports will drive additional drilling and fracking and exacerbate climate change. The International Panel for Climate Change recently released a reporthighlighting the dire consequences yet to come from climate change if action is not taken. Last fall, the IPCC found that methane is even worse for the climate than previously thought: Over a 100-year time scale, methane is 34 times more potent in the atmosphere than CO2; over 20 years, 86 times more potent. We know that methane is emitted during oil and gas drilling, fracking and distribution. Climate scientists warn that we must leave fossil fuels in the ground and aggressively transition to renewable energy to avert catastrophic climate change. The energy policy of exporting U.S. fracked gas all over the world will further contribute to climate change
The London array offshore wind-farm project costed around ₤1.8 billion pounds sterling, took 2 years to erect and generates 630 MW of electricity.
Hinkley Point C Nuclear power station project costs around ₤16 billion pounds (9 times the cost of the array) sterling, will take around just over 10 years (5 times as long) for both reactors to be fully operational and will generate over 5 times more power at 3200 MW.
I am no longer opposed to nuclear power stations but for the speed at which we need to react to reduce fossil fuel burning surely wind has a very large part to place in meteorological suitable areas. Why the hesitation and obstinate opposition ?
London Array Foundation and Turbine Installation video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O7b3Ev2Emyc
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-bank-climate-change-will-lead-to-battles-for-food-17263
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/07-0
“Why the hesitation and obstinate opposition ?”
I think we know why.
Actually one of the obstacles to wind power is the nuclear lobby. Here in the UK they have a nasty habit of doing anything they can to clear the way for they’re little darling. I’ve heard stories of people objecting to wind power, or a neighbour’s solar panel because they have a relative who works in the industry and somehow they believe that they have a moral (or perhaps immoral) duty to oppose anything non-nuclear.
Of course the problem is, as you highlight, nuclear is painfully slow to install and the result has been to create a massive gap in the UK’s grid that, in the absence of wind, will likely be filled with fossil fuels.
Its a shame. There is all the carbon while waiting for 10 years. And the carbon for mining fuel and construction. It takes more than a decade to see any reduction in carbon, and its quite expensive. We have already had that entire conversation here. Meanwhile, by the time it starts, wind and solar are far, far cheaper, and storage has finally come around. Shortsighted? You bet.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your first paragraph claim? Or is it just made up out of your own mindset?
As you can see from the comparison in the post you’re replying to, in terms of MW/year, nuclear installation is comparable to wind installation, project for project. In terms of delivered power – think capacity factors – it’s rather better.
I hear tales of woe like this all the time from solar energy installers. Indeed look no further than Hinckley C itself. A couple of years ago they proposed to build a wind farm on the same site as the new reactor will sit. The nuclear lobby rounded on the local council and got it cancelled on grounds that it would “spoil the natural beauty” of the site…the exact same spot that they are now building the UK’s largest industrial monstrosity in the country…not a whiff from the locals (who all happen to work in the nuke industry!).
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Nuclear-land-deal-leaves-Lady-Gass-pound-50m/story-13875250-detail/story.html#axzz2gPgqajeI
Countryside Guardian (see below), an astroturf pro-nuclear and anti-wind farm group were prominent in this whole affair.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/aug/13/energy.columnists
Funnily enough I do a comparison of nuclear v’s renewables in this article below, accounting for the effect of capacity factors. The fact is that renewables are being installed at a rate nine times greater than nuclear.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/a-global-report-card-for-renewables/
My previous reply doesn’t seem to have appear, must have put too many links in!
I hear tales of woe like this all the time from solar energy installers. Indeed look no further than Hinckley C itself. A couple of years ago they proposed to build a wind farm on the same site as the new reactor will sit. The nuclear lobby rounded on the local council and got it cancelled on grounds that it would “spoil the natural beauty” of the site…the exact same spot that they are now building the UK’s largest industrial monstrosity in the country…not a whiff from the locals (who all happen to work in the nuke industry!).
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Nuclear-land-deal-leaves-Lady-Gass-pound-50m/story-13875250-detail/story.html#axzz2gPgqajeI
Countryside Guardian (google them or their chairman Bernard Ingraham), an astroturf pro-nuclear and anti-wind farm group were prominent in this whole affair.
Funnily enough I do a comparison of nuclear v’s renewables in this article below, accounting for the effect of capacity factors. The fact is that renewables are being installed at a rate nine times greater than nuclear.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/a-global-report-card-for-renewables/
Your link does not support your assertion.
It seems that you are indeed fabricating this tale of woe and persecution.
Joffan,
The linked article does mention the plan to develop a wind farm on the site and that the owner originally sold it for those purposes. It is a matter of public record that this wind farm development was blocked by the local council (stacked full of pro-nuclear lackies) who then said nothing when it was sold on for Hinckley C. If you dispute my version of events, or the wikipedia link below, might I suggest you get in touch with sommerset council who will verify this story, or go read the online copies of the local papers, notably the Bridgewater times. I’m travelling at the moment (and limited in the number of links I can post as my prior comment disappeared) and don’t have time to dig up the appropriate links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#History
Here is also an article from the Guardian which mentions the anti-wind activities of the UK nuclear lobby.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/aug/13/energy.columnists
I used to be pro-nuclear, what drove me to scepticism of the industry was:
1) That most pro-nuke supporters where fantasists, proposing unrealistic ideas and megalomaniac scale roll out of nuclear that could never be reasonably for-filled
2) I became aware that the nuclear lobby were actively working against other ideas such as energy conservation and renewables that could make an important contribution
3) The tendency of pro-nuke supporters to behave as your are (i.e. putting you’re fingers in you’re ears and pretending neither of the last two points aren’t true).
You’re serving up extremely weak sauce here. A 10-yr-old op-ed from the Guardian?
Your so-called evidence for some particular anti-renewable activity by – well, it doesn’t seem to be by any identifiable group – seems to be a grab-bag of any opposition to renewable installation which you then assume is due to nuclear interests.
As for fantasy – there is a track record of a country rolling out an essentially complete switch to nuclear electricity in a 20 year period.
Joffan,
I’m clearly dealing with a pro-nuclear fanatic who will not absorb any facts that contradict his fantasies and won’t listen to reason, but here’s one more go…
That there is a link between the pro-nuclear lobby and anti-wind lobby is no big secret, its well known. Here’s a profile of Bernard Inghram, head of both SONE and the anti-wind Countryside Guardian:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bernard_Ingham
And here’s an article by George Monbiot (pro-nuclear) describing such activities:
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/04/26/a-different-kind-of-revolution/
And again I refer you to my previous linked article from the Guardian by Polly Toynbee. Obviously I’m not suggesting everyone who is pro-nuke is anti-wind (certainly, Monbiot is pro wind and nuclear), but clearly there are some in the nuclear lobby who are campaigning and lobbying at all levels, against wind and solar energy.
You’re dealing with someone who doesn’t share your view, so stories which you somehow interpret as supporting your view do not actually have the content to convince me. There really isn’t anything in the links you provided to indicate an “anti-wind nuclear lobby”.
You have one person. Bernard Ingham. OK, he appears to be pro-nuclear and anti-wind. I’m sure you can acknowledge that one person doesn’t make a lobby.
Your quoted article from Monbiot pre-dates his pro-nuclear days. He was anti-nuclear at the time and quite willing to indulge in all the usual self-deception to inflate the bogeyman as much as possible.
I’ll quote you one of his later articles. His closing thoughts on moral imperatives are worth a reflective read.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
We have a moral duty not to spread unnecessary and unfounded fears. If we persuade people that they or their children are likely to suffer from horrible and dangerous health problems, and if these fears are baseless, we cause great distress and anxiety, needlessly damaging the quality of people’s lives.
We have a moral duty not to divert good, determined campaigners away from fighting real threats, and into campaigns against imaginary threats. Dedicated and effective activists are a scarce resource. Wasting their lives by encouraging them to chase unicorns is a disservice to them and a disservice to everyone else.
Here is solar and storage costs as a function of time plotted on a log graph. It reflects the growth rates of solar and storage.
http://rameznaam.com/2013/11/14/solar-power-is-dropping-faster-than-i-projected/
Peter featured an article on solar growth rates and cost reduction.
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/17/the-weekend-wonk-thinking-about-solar-with-elon-musk/
Prove your assertion with references. Remember, you have to account for the loss of older decommissioned reactors. If you look at the US, nuclear is in decline, because reactors are being decommissioned. New reactors are just being built nw and more reactors will be decommissioned in the mean time. Nuclear has to keep up with the rate of decommissioning just to stand still. The majority of US NPP are over 30 years old and are beginning to lose cost competitiveness because of old age maintenance costs.
Nuclear just cannot compete with solar growth rates and cost reduction rates. Nuclear has a negative learning curve, its not getting cheaper, its getting more expensive as time goes on. Already, its more expensive than wind, gas, and coal. Its not going to get better.
I’ll prove my assertion with numbers.
London array offshore wind-farm:
2 years construction
630MW (pk) generation
250MW est. average (40% CF)
Hinkley Point C Nuclear:
10 years construction
3200MW(pk) generation
2700MW est. average (85% CF)
My assertion:
in terms of MW/year, nuclear installation is comparable to wind installation, project for project. In terms of delivered power, it’s rather better.
London array offshore wind-farm:
630/2 = 365MW/yr (pk) installation rate
250/2 = 125MW/yr (ave) installation rate
Hinkley Point C Nuclear:
3200/10 = 320MW/yr (pk) installation rate
2700/10 = 270MW/yr (ave) installation rate
365 vs 320 – nuclear comparable
125 vs 270 – nuclear rather better
I should note that the 2-year period claimed for the London Array is ignoring the earlier start of onshore construction.
Your attempt to throw fantasy requirements into the accounting is noted.
Comparing nuclear to the most expensive wind, offshore, is not meaningful. Nor is it meaningful to confine renewables to a single nation, especially in Europe. Instead of national requirements, we should think of regional ones across broad multinational areas. Then we see hydro in Norway, wind in Scotland, solar in Spain, etc.
on the note of pro nuclear anti wind, if you are familiar with UK, look no further than McKay. Willful blinders do not an argument make.
The oil and gas companies last gasp is natural gas. They need to keep us on FF transportation and electricity from natural gas or its game over for them. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, it is game over already. They can only stall. But not for long. Wind and solar costs are still dropping. Solar is dropping exponentially. Storage costs are dropping exponentially. FF costs are rising.
http://rameznaam.com/2013/11/14/solar-power-is-dropping-faster-than-i-projected/
Nuclear can’t help. Too little, too late, too expensive. The old nuclear reactors are closing faster than new ones are replacing them. Hinckley will cost more. Just wait. The cost over runs are coming.
The USA exporting natural gas is probably not going to happen, especially to Europe. Yes, the country can and does export propane already, but that’s because propane is easily bottled. Lacking a pipeline, natural gas (methane) has to cooled into LNG. That is an expensive and energy inefficient process which the USA is actually not well equipped for. There is only one LNG terminal in the USA and it’s on the west coast (to serve Japan).
Given that the fracking-enhanced boomlet in natural gas in the USA is likely to be a short-lived phenomena, by the time LNG seaports could be built, the gas fields may well be declining.
For the USA to embark on a multi-billion construction program of LNG terminals on the east coast would be foolish, and not competitive with the Middle East (notably Qatar) which has such facilities already. There would also need to be LNG offloading facilities built in Europe, another huge expense.
But if money to finance this foolishness is made available, then I suppose someone will try. Wall Street never saw a Ponzi scheme it didn’t like.
As for wind actually replacing natural gas, I’m not real hopeful on that happening either. But I’ll save that argument for another day.
According to an inside source I have, the US natural gas inventory for FY 2013-2014 was almost completely depleted due to the record cold snap over the eastern 2/3rds of the country. Propane almost went down to zero because the end of summer harvest for corn ethanol had to be dried out, (you do it through heating), after all the rains. Replenishment of inventories started on schedule around April 1 this year. Natgas prices will probably be high this year due in part to the mass depletion plus the fact that many drillers have gone from nagast back to oil because oil prices are once again higher. Note that inventories, which are routinely stored in depleted oil wells, salt mines, etc are not to be confused with provable reserve. This was the natgast that was already extracted, but stored for the cold months.
Every nuke power station built on the sea shore in a time of rising seas and stronger storms is a potential Fukushima. It boggles my mind to think that this can even be considered. Since Japan has no idea how to fix the Fukushima problem, and neither does anyone else apparently, it continues to pour radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean, contaminating the food supply of billions of people. How much of this are we willing to accept to get “cheap” power?
What will we do with the nuclear waste we have already?
Current US policy prohibits the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, for two primary reasons. First is economics – the fuel costs for nuclear power plants are already among the lowest of any non-renewable power generation resource. Once nuclear power plants are built, if they are well-run they cost very little to operate. While recycling of spent nuclear fuel would eliminate the need for virgin uranium ore to be mined or for additional fuel to be purchased on the world market, it is not at all clear whether the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs of reprocessing. The other reason is nuclear security. The process of recycling nuclear fuel involves the separation of uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel rods. There have been concerns regarding plutonium falling into the wrong hands and contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
All civilian nuclear waste was intended to be stored permanently at a repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Yucca Mountain facility is not currently operational and significant uncertainties exist surrounding its timetable, and how issues of allocating scarce storage space will be allocated to civilian and military waste will be resolved (even if Yucca Mountain opened up tomorrow, it would not be able to accept waste materials from civilian nuclear plants for many years, since military waste would have priority in transportation and storage). In the interim, spent nuclear waste will continue to be stored on-site at the power plants.
Is the solution to the U.S. nuclear waste problem in France?
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all
Above is courtesy of “Energy, the Environment and Our Future” Penn State University – Professors Dr. Richard B. Alley and Dr. Seth Blumsack
I wish I was as optimistic.
“Another favourite delusion of the Nuclear industry is to again resort to their favourite pin-up, the fast reactor (see myth VII), which they claim can be used to “burn” the more potent actinides down into less dangerous form”
It doesn’t quite explain it here, but maybe daryan will pipe in. These schemes use an exotic reactor and put it in the fuel. Now that is not the end of it. It has to be reprocessed, too. And that is always where the sticky wicket is. Reprocessing has been a complete disaster. Just look up West Valley. Huge losses. And a big decontamination bill.
One should always ask, why hasn’t it been done before if its so easy and economical. It hasn’t. And it isn’t. So don’t. Go there.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/myth-x-–-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-is-easily-solved-indeed-we’ve-already-sorted-it-out/
Best ClimateCrocks headline yet!
Can’t remember a better one—-LOL
As good as “Headless Body in Topless Bar” !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYPost.jpg
That’s a “topper” for sure, but I was thinking mainly of previous Crock headlines.
Yes, it’s one of Peter’s best… but I’m sure there’ll be more candidates to follow…
I cannot understand rigid business models, surely oil and gas can transfer to Wind and Solar. Rigidity is downfall, for humanity and the planet.
Analogous to the teaser rate mortgage being the real estate bubble’s swan song.
Something to keep in mind is that news organizations are companies dependent on ad revenue. It’s really not different than a Congressman reliant on campaign donations. It might not make them 100% corrupt, but there is a lot of benefit in slanting opinion to favor certain industries. In addition to that, most reporters have go-to industry people to get their quotes and info, and each of these industry people will have a specific agenda. As a result, there’s a lot of confusing info in the media, which is really just the various industry’s competing influences.
On LNG exports, it’s an insane idea as far as energy independence, and it would also amplify fracking activity, but it would also definitely drive the cost of NG up, and therefore make renewables more and more competitive.
The fracked gas breakeven point on profit is very close to even with coal’s price, too, so coal would likely see a resurgence (if not here, then elsewhere), as NG prices rise.
Here’s another article from today:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26923260
It shows global renewable investment down in 2013 from the past two years. Part of that is simply due to the lowering cost of renewables, and part of that is blamed on ‘policy uncertainty’. Government wavering on energy policy causes wavering investment. There’s some good info in the rest of the article about where renewables are thriving.
Hey Peter, nice pic. WTG are beautiful, majestic. Their motion is spellbinding.