In article <1119636387.0a34e3ac1ea170db70e5a6127f6de996@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

It is definitely cost effective compared to the alternative.

Not according to this British study:

First off, it didn't address solar or otec and only included one
token type of biomass generation. I notice it didn't include
conventional hydro either, since it can produce power at rates as
cheap as 1.1 cents per kilowatt.

Next, before I go on to address this so-called study, I just want to
point out that the same folks who scream about wind costing a few
cents more per kilowatt don't seem to bat an eye when the price of oil
doubles and deride things like energy conservation as they drive
around in their 9 mile per gallon SUV behemoth. I know that, as
usual, you'll foam at the mouth about this being a "red herring", but
it has to make you wonder about the policy consistency of folks who,
all of a sudden discover frugality when it comes to select renewable
sources.

Now as to the article, there are clearly plenty of oversimplification
like "excluded costs associated with transmission/distribution".
Since renewable energy tends to be smaller and decentralized, it can
be built closer to population centers and decrease the costs of
transmission and distribution. They nicely put their thumb on the
scale with that one. If you actually look the literature you will
find that there are any number of conflicting models for calculating
the costs of different power generation technologies and all of them
come out with different numbers based upon different assumptions. So
pardon me if I don't place a great deal of credence in their
generation cost numbers. BTW, you'll note that they are estimating
generation cost, not the market price, which might be able to support
one form of technology better than another. For example, in a low
population state without a lot of electricity transmission
infrastructure, the building of nuclear power plants would not be
practical, nor would the selling of excess power without large
additional infrastructure costs.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14999

British Studies Show Prohibitive Cost of 'Renewable' Energy
Wind Power, Other Renewables Twice as Expensive as Emissions-Free
Nuclear Power Written By: James M. Taylor

Did you wonder what this guy's credentials are other than supposedly
editing an anti-global warming ragsheet. I suppose you missed all the
"Crichton is Right" stuff too on the website. Now there's an expert
for you...not!

Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A pair of British studies released in March and April 2004 show
relying on wind power or other non-nuclear "renewables" to reduce air
pollution or carbon dioxide emissions forces consumers to pay

Actually they dealt with the cost of the energy to *generate*, not the
ultimate price that customers would necessarily pay and the
distinction is important. It's also important that they stated as a
premise, "Renewables are generally more expensive than conventional
generation technologies. This is due in part to the immaturity of the
technology and the more limited opportunity to take advantage of cost
savings brought about by economies of scale". If large wind turbines
were being mass produced and more automated processes were being used
on a larger scale then they're conceding that the cost would be lower.

In fact wind power can be scaled up.

That's particularly true with
the offshore stuff which they present as being more expensive, but in
fact, could be a better producer than the onshore systems, if scaled
up properly.

at least twice as
much as they currently pay for electricity generated

First off, report says, "nuclear stations, costing just 2.3 p/kWh
(British pence per kilowatt hour), compared with 3.7 p/kWh" there is
no universe where 3.7 is "at least twice as much" as 2.3.

Furthermore, it's rather clear that they appear to be ignoring other
costs which can legitimately be levied,such as the cost of insuring
against catastrophic nuclear plant mishaps. They claim that they look
at some level of "insurance" but there is no insurance available on
the market which would cover the cost of evacuating and cleaning up
all of London in the case of a serious nuclear mishap.

Instead, they
just buy the standard insurance that other utility companies purchase
and pretend that the risks could possibly be that low. As I
mentioned, they also mysteriously neglect the cost of energy
transmission from a distant, monolithic nuclear plant and of course
and give short shrift to the real cost of dealing with the huge
amounts of radioactive pollutants that come in the form of fissile
waste.

The study noted, "No matter how large the wind power capacity, the
variable nature of its output means it can make no significant
contribution to security of energy supply."

This is the kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish that marks this report
as an utter piece of horseshit. The grid is used to load balance,
since the wind blows at different times in different places. There is
already excess spinning reserve which means that the "variable nature"
of the wind will have no effect until it reaches around 20% just form
wind alone. Then more reserve generation can be added. Thus, their
conclusion is moronic and completely ignores elementary knowledge
about the wind industry.

Renewables Lobby Concedes Study's Accuracy

But they didn't. They said pretty much what I said above.

The renewable energy association also
conceded, "Because of the cost of providing additional stand-by
generating capacity, it is unlikely wind power will ever account for
more than 20 percent

That is not a concession that "No matter how large the wind power
capacity, the variable nature of its output means it can make no
significant contribution to security of energy supply". Rather it is
a refutation of that assertion. 20% is significant by any
measurement. Nuclear only provides a bit less than that amount of
electricity generation in the US and nobody says that is "no
significant contribution".

of electricity generation through the National
Grid, and will make no substantial contribution to a reduction in
carbon emissions."

"The government should take advantage of the renewables review coming
up in 2005-6 to reconsider the nuclear option," wrote Simpson.
"Nuclear power avoids extra costs,

It also introduces substantial unbudgeted costs, particularly because
these assholes refuse to pay fair market value for the uranium ore
they buy from third-world countries and they refuse to reprocess the
fuel rods, creating lots of waste. Right now, Yucca Mountain would
essentially be filled, if it were to ever open and if we were getting
100% of electricity from nuclear we would need many more Yucca
Mountains. There aren't a lot of places stepping forward to be the
next waste dump and Yucca and WIPP can only be expanded so much.

emits no greenhouse gases

No it just emits incredibly toxic materials that endure for many
thousands of years.

, and contributes to
security of supply."

Except when terrorists attack it or there are natural disasters that
spread waste. Then it creates insecurity.

Analysts Note Environmental Consequences

Analysts noted economic costs are not the only costs associated with
wind power. Many environmentalists oppose wind power because of the
substantial number of birds slaughtered by turbine blades every year.
In Northern California's Altamont Pass wind fields alone, thousands
of birds are killed by wind turbines each year

Yes and literally millions of birds are killed running into power
lines, skyscrapers, airplanes, etc. Their pseudo-environmental
rhetoric is completely ridiculous and obviously insincere.
Furthermore, a great deal has been learned about how to keep birds
away using pre-recorded predator noises and siting facilities off of
migration paths.

Most importantly, the larger the blades on the
machines, the slower the RPM and the less likely that a bird will be
hurt. This "turbines kill birds" chestnut was based on the fact that
the machines at altamont in the 1970s were much smaller and therefore
operated at much lower capacity.

The bats ***** is equally ridiculous. Far more birds and bats are
killed by modern urban development than could possibly be killed by
wind turbines.

In summary Fred, you really should become a theist again, because you
are always willing to swallow any shabby belief system that kooks try
to push on you.