9 ms·

>Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts Please cite your credible source saying that wind energy is currently profitable

>Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts Please cite your credible source saying that wind energy is currently profitable in practice without subsidies in more than a tiny fraction of areas on earth.

kelnos 9y ago
Nice double standard there. You're allowed to make claims without presenting evidence, but when someone else does, you attack them for not providing sources? A quick google for "unsubsidized wind power profitability" turned up a bunch of interesting things, though I didn't delve too deeply into any of them.
- downandout 9y ago
  I can find plenty of sources saying that it isn’t profitable (there are too many to list here). I did look after reading his comment and found exactly 0 credible sources showing that it is currently profitable without subsidies today, and I looked again after reading your comment and still found nothing even when using the exact search you suggested. In fact the entire SERP for the one you suggested, with the exception of one article that suggests that offshore wind power might soon be profitable, has links to articles essentially saying that wind power is economically doomed. Am I (along with the rest of the world, who would be dancing in the streets, dedicating trillions of dollars to deploying wind towers in every corner of the earth at this very moment, and writing thousands of credible articles about how the world’s energy problems have been solved if this were true) missing something? Edit: the green folks are coming in and downvoting these comments like crazy. Could one of you please justify your downvote by replying with a link to a credible article that shows wind energy to be profitable without subsidies in non-exceptional places? I think everyone would love to see it, including myself! Google doesn’t seem to know about this very special, world-changing article. Perhaps it is protected with an overly aggressive robots.txt.
  - lowracle 9y ago
    I'm sorry you are getting downvoted, maybe it is because of your tone, but coming from someone with an impartial and uneducated view about the subject, it seems like you made a pretty good point.
    - downandout 9y ago
      Believe it or not, I am impartial in this area as well and in fact would love to see renewable energy sources rolled out broadly if and when they are economically competitive with traditional sources. This article just struck a nerve with me because I hate seeing political propaganda masquerading as legitimate news, on either side of the aisle. They have an agenda, and are pushing it with misleading articles (as the parent comment I initially replied to pointed out). They are insulting the intelligence of everyone that reads it.
  - analyzethis 9y ago
    Article is in Danish: https://ing.dk/blog/nye-normal-uden-spoergsmaalstegn-209443 https://ing.dk/blog/nye-normal-uden-spoergsmaalstegn-209443
    - downandout 9y ago
      I don’t speak Danish, and the Google translation isn’t that great, but when I said credible, a random Danish blog wasn’t really what I was referring to. I was talking about something in a major publication. Economically competitive wind power would be an earth shattering development. If it exists, there would be articles about it everywhere. Everyone on HN would be getting jobs at wind farm startups, and trillions of investment would be pouring in. Venture capitalists would be walking the streets to find wind farm entrepreneurs that have hidden their contact info because of the overwhelming number of term sheets being thrown at them. Bakeries throughout the Valley would be offering turbine-shaped gluten-free cupcakes to VC’s, who would include them with their hand-delivered term sheets in hopes that theirs gets a little bit of extra attention from picky entrepreneurs. I want it to exist too, I just see no evidence that it does.
- JanSt 9y ago
  It's not a double standard. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof for it. As it now stands, the Energiewende is going to cost one to two trillion dollar in subsidy [1] And that is with a 80m population, so in USA terms the equivalent would be $4-8 trillion. Why would that be the case, if wind energy is so cheap? Are all costs factored in? [1] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/technikwissenschaften-berechnen-kosten-fuer-energiewende-15292476.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/technikwissenschaften-...
strken 9y ago
Unfortunately, I can't give you my source, as it's from a friend who worked at one of the turbine manufacturers and had to work on forecasts for various political scenarios, and I don't think they released any of the data to the public. I know this isn't a satisfying answer, but hopefully the changes in the EU will provide a real-life example before too long.
- JanSt 9y ago
  You wrote > Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts which does not match with > Unfortunately, I can't give you my source, as it's from a friend who worked at one of the turbine manufacturers I'd say you wouldn't have to rely on an unnamable source if it were profitable for years.
soundwave106 9y ago
Wind energy seems to be actually one of the most economically viable platforms for alternative energy, and beats even some traditional sources even without subsidies, according to this study by the financial services firm Lazard: https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of... Wind energy is not viable everywhere, but in places with no NIMBY concerns, lots of rural land, and lots of wind, wind energy is perfect. Much of the US plains (especially the closer you get to the Rockies) fits this category for instance. Iowa, not exactly a mecca of environmentalism, is 35% powered by wind now; this is estimated to rise to 40% by 2020. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa)

kelnos 9y ago

Nice double standard there. You're allowed to make claims without presenting evidence, but when someone else does, you attack them for not providing sources? A quick google for "unsubsidized wind power profitability" turned up a bunch of interesting things, though I didn't delve too deeply into any of them.

downandout 9y ago
I can find plenty of sources saying that it isn’t profitable (there are too many to list here). I did look after reading his comment and found exactly 0 credible sources showing that it is currently profitable without subsidies today, and I looked again after reading your comment and still found nothing even when using the exact search you suggested. In fact the entire SERP for the one you suggested, with the exception of one article that suggests that offshore wind power might soon be profitable, has links to articles essentially saying that wind power is economically doomed. Am I (along with the rest of the world, who would be dancing in the streets, dedicating trillions of dollars to deploying wind towers in every corner of the earth at this very moment, and writing thousands of credible articles about how the world’s energy problems have been solved if this were true) missing something? Edit: the green folks are coming in and downvoting these comments like crazy. Could one of you please justify your downvote by replying with a link to a credible article that shows wind energy to be profitable without subsidies in non-exceptional places? I think everyone would love to see it, including myself! Google doesn’t seem to know about this very special, world-changing article. Perhaps it is protected with an overly aggressive robots.txt.
- lowracle 9y ago
  I'm sorry you are getting downvoted, maybe it is because of your tone, but coming from someone with an impartial and uneducated view about the subject, it seems like you made a pretty good point.
  - downandout 9y ago
    Believe it or not, I am impartial in this area as well and in fact would love to see renewable energy sources rolled out broadly if and when they are economically competitive with traditional sources. This article just struck a nerve with me because I hate seeing political propaganda masquerading as legitimate news, on either side of the aisle. They have an agenda, and are pushing it with misleading articles (as the parent comment I initially replied to pointed out). They are insulting the intelligence of everyone that reads it.
- analyzethis 9y ago
  Article is in Danish: https://ing.dk/blog/nye-normal-uden-spoergsmaalstegn-209443 https://ing.dk/blog/nye-normal-uden-spoergsmaalstegn-209443
  - downandout 9y ago
    I don’t speak Danish, and the Google translation isn’t that great, but when I said credible, a random Danish blog wasn’t really what I was referring to. I was talking about something in a major publication. Economically competitive wind power would be an earth shattering development. If it exists, there would be articles about it everywhere. Everyone on HN would be getting jobs at wind farm startups, and trillions of investment would be pouring in. Venture capitalists would be walking the streets to find wind farm entrepreneurs that have hidden their contact info because of the overwhelming number of term sheets being thrown at them. Bakeries throughout the Valley would be offering turbine-shaped gluten-free cupcakes to VC’s, who would include them with their hand-delivered term sheets in hopes that theirs gets a little bit of extra attention from picky entrepreneurs. I want it to exist too, I just see no evidence that it does.
JanSt 9y ago
It's not a double standard. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof for it. As it now stands, the Energiewende is going to cost one to two trillion dollar in subsidy [1] And that is with a 80m population, so in USA terms the equivalent would be $4-8 trillion. Why would that be the case, if wind energy is so cheap? Are all costs factored in? [1] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/technikwissenschaften-berechnen-kosten-fuer-energiewende-15292476.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/technikwissenschaften-...

strken 9y ago

Unfortunately, I can't give you my source, as it's from a friend who worked at one of the turbine manufacturers and had to work on forecasts for various political scenarios, and I don't think they released any of the data to the public. I know this isn't a satisfying answer, but hopefully the changes in the EU will provide a real-life example before too long.

JanSt 9y ago
You wrote > Wind has been profitable for years and years even without government handouts which does not match with > Unfortunately, I can't give you my source, as it's from a friend who worked at one of the turbine manufacturers I'd say you wouldn't have to rely on an unnamable source if it were profitable for years.

soundwave106 9y ago

Wind energy seems to be actually one of the most economically viable platforms for alternative energy, and beats even some traditional sources even without subsidies, according to this study by the financial services firm Lazard: https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of... Wind energy is not viable everywhere, but in places with no NIMBY concerns, lots of rural land, and lots of wind, wind energy is perfect. Much of the US plains (especially the closer you get to the Rockies) fits this category for instance. Iowa, not exactly a mecca of environmentalism, is 35% powered by wind now; this is estimated to rise to 40% by 2020. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa)