9 ms·

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

Alupis 2y ago
Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
  - Alupis 2y ago
    They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      "Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing. Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.
        verall 2y ago
        I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.
        TheGRS 2y ago
        Every one of these types of threads pulls out the pro-nuclear folks. I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why anyone loves paying billions for projects that take 10+ years to complete. And sometimes they don't even complete! In the meantime you could've setup many different alternative energy solutions, not just wind, could've done it in the fraction of the time and probably under-budget.
        Alupis 2y ago
        These projects don't need to take 10+ years to complete, and don't need to cost what they cost. Decades of fearmongering and NIMBYISM have created an artificial environment.
        hackerlight 2y ago
        Social licensing costs are just costs and won't go away just because you really really dislike them. Besides, even if you could wave a magic wand and delete such costs, like the Chinese government can with their top down control of planning and media, it's still worse, as their revealed preferences demonstrate with their acceleration of renewables build-out and slowdown of nuclear build-out.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      >> including the quantity needed Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive). Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be). Candidly we need to look for ways to decouple energy creation, storage and transmission from each other. How do I buy enoung fractional shares in creation and storage so I only have to pay the cost of transmission? How do I make my utility into an asset!
      - Alupis 2y ago
        California also experiences rolling blackouts each summer - and lately turns off the power when it's too hot, wind blows too hard, wind doesn't blow enough, etc. It's incredibly unreliable for biggest state in the union. But... we can sure pick a couple ultra-rare events and say "see, wind works" when it in fact does not.
        zer00eyz 2y ago
        > rolling blackouts each summer We haven't had a rolling blackout since the early 2000 and Enron. What we do have is decades of PGE not doing any work to maintain or upgrade their grid. Our power company is so incompetent it has a death toll. Texas gets something like 24 percent of its power from wind. IT has now updated its rules to force all renewables to be ride through sources (this will add cost but it isnt going to slow things down). Go take a deep dive into the numbers, you might be shocked at what you find.
  - powerbroker 2y ago
    ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning). EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates. https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2023/wind-snap.php#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20wind%20represented%2028.6,coal%2Dfired%20generation%20in%202020 https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2....
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  > Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind. Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/ https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions. You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day? If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources? Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.
    - pedroma 2y ago
      I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        > I would imagine it's massive. It has to be massive. There is no other way to manage a 70% production swing in as short as a couple minutes and not have the grid go dark. Which then begs the question of how green the batteries are over decades. We've picked the least reliable energy source and intellectually anchored ourselves to it - then we don't talk about how we actually keep the lights on 24/7. It's kind of nuts.
        2y ago
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > Subsidies are bolstered by politics. That right there is irony.
- 7952 2y ago
  The main reason for subsidy is that the costs are all upfront and electricity prices are unpredictable. That is not a problem that is unique to wind, particularly in the climate change era. Systems like strike prices can be competitively priced and avoid overpayment. Arguably the main problem is that countries take a natural monopoly and then try and treat it like a market. When a well run state company could invest with more certainty.
- nerdbert 2y ago
  They can be built much more quickly than nuclear plants and they take coal and oil out of furnaces right now, which is exactly what we need. That's nothing but good.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  Seriously did nobody read the article?! The article was specifically about this question, windfarms generate all the energy they needed to make them in 2 years time. This is completely unrelated to government subsidies. Sometimes I loose faith in humanity.
yareal 2y ago
I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.
- pedroma 2y ago
  My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.
  - andyferris 2y ago
    I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else? (I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).
  - garbageman 2y ago
    Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...
    - pedroma 2y ago
      I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right? So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair? - Edit: Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar. "One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand." "In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."

Alupis 2y ago

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...

mikeyouse 2y ago
Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
- Alupis 2y ago
  They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    "Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing. Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.
      - verall 2y ago
        I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.
        TheGRS 2y ago
        Every one of these types of threads pulls out the pro-nuclear folks. I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why anyone loves paying billions for projects that take 10+ years to complete. And sometimes they don't even complete! In the meantime you could've setup many different alternative energy solutions, not just wind, could've done it in the fraction of the time and probably under-budget.
        Alupis 2y ago
        These projects don't need to take 10+ years to complete, and don't need to cost what they cost. Decades of fearmongering and NIMBYISM have created an artificial environment.
        hackerlight 2y ago
        Social licensing costs are just costs and won't go away just because you really really dislike them. Besides, even if you could wave a magic wand and delete such costs, like the Chinese government can with their top down control of planning and media, it's still worse, as their revealed preferences demonstrate with their acceleration of renewables build-out and slowdown of nuclear build-out.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    >> including the quantity needed Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive). Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be). Candidly we need to look for ways to decouple energy creation, storage and transmission from each other. How do I buy enoung fractional shares in creation and storage so I only have to pay the cost of transmission? How do I make my utility into an asset!
    - Alupis 2y ago
      California also experiences rolling blackouts each summer - and lately turns off the power when it's too hot, wind blows too hard, wind doesn't blow enough, etc. It's incredibly unreliable for biggest state in the union. But... we can sure pick a couple ultra-rare events and say "see, wind works" when it in fact does not.
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        > rolling blackouts each summer We haven't had a rolling blackout since the early 2000 and Enron. What we do have is decades of PGE not doing any work to maintain or upgrade their grid. Our power company is so incompetent it has a death toll. Texas gets something like 24 percent of its power from wind. IT has now updated its rules to force all renewables to be ride through sources (this will add cost but it isnt going to slow things down). Go take a deep dive into the numbers, you might be shocked at what you find.
- powerbroker 2y ago
  ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning). EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates. https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2023/wind-snap.php#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20wind%20represented%2028.6,coal%2Dfired%20generation%20in%202020 https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2....
thebruce87m 2y ago
> Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind. Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/ https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/
- Alupis 2y ago
  Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions. You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day? If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources? Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.
  - pedroma 2y ago
    I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > I would imagine it's massive. It has to be massive. There is no other way to manage a 70% production swing in as short as a couple minutes and not have the grid go dark. Which then begs the question of how green the batteries are over decades. We've picked the least reliable energy source and intellectually anchored ourselves to it - then we don't talk about how we actually keep the lights on 24/7. It's kind of nuts.
      - 2y ago
rootusrootus 2y ago
> Subsidies are bolstered by politics. That right there is irony.
7952 2y ago
The main reason for subsidy is that the costs are all upfront and electricity prices are unpredictable. That is not a problem that is unique to wind, particularly in the climate change era. Systems like strike prices can be competitively priced and avoid overpayment. Arguably the main problem is that countries take a natural monopoly and then try and treat it like a market. When a well run state company could invest with more certainty.
nerdbert 2y ago
They can be built much more quickly than nuclear plants and they take coal and oil out of furnaces right now, which is exactly what we need. That's nothing but good.
cycomanic 2y ago
Seriously did nobody read the article?! The article was specifically about this question, windfarms generate all the energy they needed to make them in 2 years time. This is completely unrelated to government subsidies. Sometimes I loose faith in humanity.

yareal 2y ago

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

pedroma 2y ago
My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.
- andyferris 2y ago
  I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else? (I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).
- garbageman 2y ago
  Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...
  - pedroma 2y ago
    I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right? So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair? - Edit: Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar. "One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand." "In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."