Like I said, I call them as I see them.

The numbers pretty much say it all. This one is, in fact, a slam dunk.

Tom

You are correct about the price of natural gas. As I pointed out, above, wind is already cheaper per kilowatt-hour than natural gas when everything is factored in.

This is not so, and won’t be for a very long time, for solar photovoltaics. The lowest installed price for solar photovoltaics is about $5.50 per watt with today’s technologies. An installed watt of PV will realistically yield about 5 watt-hours per day in the southwest US. That is about 2 kilowatt-hours per year. At $0.10 per kilowatt hour for more conventional power, the payback time for the solar PV is about 25 years. In the meantime, advances in solar PV or other technologies, will likely deliver more cost effective results - while we would still be waiting for the solar PV installed today to pay for itself. That is why solar PV today is not a good deal, except in certain very small markets.

Today’s wind and solar PV technologies don’t work when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. But we still need power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

The molten salt storage thermal solar power referred to (uncordially) by Nancy LaPlaca is a better alternative to wind or solar photovoltaics in the Southwestern US because it does deliver power when the sun isn’t shining. But it won’t work nearly as well where the insolation is lower.

Thank you for your comment.

Best Regards,
Tom

I agree with you that solar and wind have certain limitations right now. However, it seems that you are forgetting to factor in the price of natural gas, which has increased considerably in the last year. The natural gas plant will have to buy its gas every year, while the wind and solar generate power for free beyond the initial cost.

That said, I suggest that you rewrite the article with a new cost matrix.

Regards,
Jamie

Thanks for your comment. You are absolutely correct. I am assuming all the energy is transferred through the water, without heating it, etc., directly to the ice.

My point is that the upper limit of the amount of melted ice is vanishingly small.

Tom
ClimateSanity

Unless the volcanism is at or near the surface (as it is along the coast of the Antarctic) I would not think it would have much of an effect.

Thanks for staying on topic. By the way, you are wrong.

See World WIde Words for a breakdown of the use of people, peoples, person and persons.

Best Regards.
Tom

Thank you for your comments.

If you re-read my post, above, you will see that I say that wind is “cheaper than gas per kilowatt-hour generated.” Additionally, I go on to say “with the high construction cost, wind energy would still be cheaper per kilowatt-hour than gas in the long run.” So, we are in agreement on these points. Yes?

In my conclusion I mentioned “I am all for solar and wind energy. Really. Just click on the “ClimateSanity by Tom Moriarty” tab at the top of this page if you doubt me.” I suggest that you actually do that if you have not already.

The point I am making, perhaps not clearly enough, is that wind and (photovoltaic) solar are non-continuous sources. They don’t work when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, respectively. But we still need and want power during those times. We expect and rely on Xcel to come through with that power. And they have done so quite reliably.

Also, photovoltaics are not cost effective. Maybe in the future - I sure hope so - but not now.

Nancy LaPlaca above touts the benefits of concentrating solar power with molten salt storage (not to be confused with concentrating solar photovoltaics). This has the advantage over wind and solar photovoltaics of being able to deliver power to the grid when the sun goes down. But, of course, it is only practical where the insolation is adequate. My guess is that if it turns out to be cost effective, then it will be more widely adopted. And as time goes on the cost effectiveness of various renewables are likely to increase.

Best regards,
Tom Moriarty