6 ms·
A different article puts the energy costs at: "140 pounds ($185) per megawatt-hour on top of the current wholesale power price in the UK, which is about 49 poun
by hliyan 9y ago
A different article puts the energy costs at: "140 pounds ($185) per megawatt-hour on top of the current wholesale power price in the UK, which is about 49 pounds ($65) per megawatt-hour"
Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
- Gys 9y ago12 more years ;-) > By 2030, Statoil says, it hopes to bring the cost of floating offshore wind down to €40-60 per MWh ($50-74 per MWh).
- toomuchtodo 9y agoYou should look at how inaccurate the EIA predicted renewable generation costs would decline (they predicted decades longer). Solar and battery manufacturing costs have been dropping ~80% every decade. Even if the cost decline curve starts to flatten, the fate of fossil and nuclear generators is sealed.
- CydeWeys 9y agoWind power is big on-site construction though, which doesn't decrease much in cost over time (if at all). Yes, there'll be some economies in scale if we're making ten times as many turbine blades in the future versus now, but that won't come close to the orders of magnitude improvements we've seen in cost efficiency in photovoltaic cells over the past decades. To use a simple example outside of renewables, it's now more expensive than ever before in US history to complete a large infrastructure project (say, a new bridge across the Hudson River), but you can buy a $40 Raspberry Pi that has more processing capacity than all the billions of dollars worth of computers that existed in the 60s.
- nicoburns 9y agoI think cost per mwh has been improving for wind not by reducing infrustructure construction costs, but by increasing the amount of power a given installation generates. If the generator/turbine is twice as efficient then the cost is halved...
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThis is correct. Turbine hub altitude and per turbine output continues to climb. https://i.imgur.com/7H0Jgdm.png https://i.imgur.com/7H0Jgdm.png
- cjalmeida 9y agoFloating offshore wind has it's own manufacturing dynamics. For instance, you can build the whole structure in a shipyard and toll it, unlike onshore. Floating towers are definitely a revolution in wind farm building.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoAlso very importantly, this can keep shipyards busy building continuously, which is superior to the usual shipbuilding boom/bust cycles. (I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)
- jopsen 9y agoAny reason to believe wind farminh won't follow the same economic mood swings?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- usrusr 9y agoWind generators would be very price elastic: if an idle shipyard makes a desperate offer, the whole profitability threshold shifts and the energy market is impossible to completely saturate (worst case you'd have so much energy that it would be economical to synthesize hydrocarbons from thin air, to pump them into the ground for CO2 credits). Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.
- CydeWeys 9y agoWhat's the cost reduction of doing this? Wind blades, turbines, and towers are already built in factories; the only difference here appears to be that you don't need to do as much site prep or assembly on site? I'm sure it saves some money but I'd be surprised if it saves even half.
- walshemj 9y agoAnd hell of a lot more for offshore
- jopsen 9y agoLots of the components in wind turbines are custom made, CNC milled, etc. with more scale and focus on cost optimizations they can get far. As for the bridge: the concrete business doesn't see a lot of innovation. Still if corrected for inflation and aiming for similar durability, it wouldn't surprise me if today's engineering can build cheaper bridges. After all, we've learned a thing or two about suspension bridges over the years.
- jhayward 9y ago> Wind power is big on-site construction though, which doesn't decrease much in cost over time (if at all) False. Every industry has what's known as the learning curve. It is this curve which is responsible for e.g., the 90% drop in cost of solar panels since 2000. Wind turbine manufacture, blade manufacture, mooring, installation, maintenance, management, all are following a significant industrial learning curve and there is every reason to expect it to continue to behave like other industries.
- lumisota 9y agoThose aren't the costs of generating the energy. They receive ~£140/MWh in government subsidies, and ~£49/MWh for wholesale supply.
- vuln 9y agoSo the consumer is paying twice? Through taxes and then again when they actually purchase the power? Wow...
- hunta2097 9y agoBritish taxpayer here. I'm completely fine with it. Makes me wonder what we could do had we invested that bailout in innovation rather than City of London banking.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoIf it keeps you from going to war (for oil) and/ or being manipulated in other way (e.g., by Big Oil) then it's money well spent.
- DEADBEEF 9y agoJust an aside, but much of the bailout money was recovered when the shares the UK acquired were subsequently sold on once the banks had restabilised.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoYes. But certainly a far better return than an excesssive over "investment" in the MIC and its ilk.
- pjc50 9y agoIf we kept going with coal, the government might have to pay the costs of dealing with Somerset, Norfolk etc being underwater instead ...
- PoachedSausage 9y ago