5 ms·

A while back I posted that according to my local state utility, installed wind power cost per year was 4 times the latest price of installed nat-gas per year, b

A while back I posted that according to my local state utility, installed wind power cost per year was 4 times the latest price of installed nat-gas per year, both for the newest installations. And from that I concluded nuclear power was the only viable alternative to CO2 producing energy. Now this is the highest heresy in our new world religion, yet I only lost a single vote. Granted I didn't get any useful feedback on why I was wrong, likely because that would have involved 2 minutes of googling and some basic math, and it's just easier to believe what you want and click downvote. But Hacker News is still way better than anyplace else for serious discussions.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> installed wind power cost per year was 4 times the latest price of installed nat-gas per year I don't know which state you are in, but for the US as a whole "recent [2018] wind farms have gotten so cheap that you can build and operate them for less than the expected cost of buying fuel for an equivalent natural gas plant." https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-no...
- merpnderp 5y ago
  But that's my point, none of these studies ever cite a utility's actual costs. When I got curious and looked at what the actual cost to the utility (not counting any federal rebates) just their actual outlays, versus how much power was generated over the year, it was ridiculous. And the easy way to know this is true is that utilities are still building nat-gas plants. It's not like they love nat-gas, they love money and profits. If wind was actually cheaper than fuel, they'd just be over building wind farms so that no new nat-gas plants were needed.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > just their actual outlays My instinct is that you're not including the cost of the fuel, or maybe the two types of plants have different financing models that are hard to compare directly, but I wouldn't be qualified to check your results even if you presented all the data. > It's not like they love nat-gas, they love money and profits. Doesn't this logic cut both ways? If wind energy was so expensive, then no one would be building wind farms.
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      > My instinct is that you're not including the cost of the fuel The docs seemed pretty clear that they were the operating costs of the installation. I had to find the install cost and the operating costs separately. > Doesn't this logic cut both ways? If wind energy was so expensive, then no one would be building wind farms. That's a good point, but there is also an enormous amount of pressure to go carbon free and these power companies answer to several regulatory bodies all with enormous power of their operations. It's not unreasonable to believe there are requirements to move to wind for continued licensing.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> installed wind power cost per year was 4 times the latest price of installed nat-gas per year I don't know which state you are in, but for the US as a whole "recent [2018] wind farms have gotten so cheap that you can build and operate them for less than the expected cost of buying fuel for an equivalent natural gas plant." https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-no...

merpnderp 5y ago
But that's my point, none of these studies ever cite a utility's actual costs. When I got curious and looked at what the actual cost to the utility (not counting any federal rebates) just their actual outlays, versus how much power was generated over the year, it was ridiculous. And the easy way to know this is true is that utilities are still building nat-gas plants. It's not like they love nat-gas, they love money and profits. If wind was actually cheaper than fuel, they'd just be over building wind farms so that no new nat-gas plants were needed.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > just their actual outlays My instinct is that you're not including the cost of the fuel, or maybe the two types of plants have different financing models that are hard to compare directly, but I wouldn't be qualified to check your results even if you presented all the data. > It's not like they love nat-gas, they love money and profits. Doesn't this logic cut both ways? If wind energy was so expensive, then no one would be building wind farms.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    > My instinct is that you're not including the cost of the fuel The docs seemed pretty clear that they were the operating costs of the installation. I had to find the install cost and the operating costs separately. > Doesn't this logic cut both ways? If wind energy was so expensive, then no one would be building wind farms. That's a good point, but there is also an enormous amount of pressure to go carbon free and these power companies answer to several regulatory bodies all with enormous power of their operations. It's not unreasonable to believe there are requirements to move to wind for continued licensing.