Solar and Wind to the Rescue? Yes, but Not How You Think
This article describes an extremely important development in the energy business - the deployment of wind and solar to technologies to extract hydrocarbon based fuels, natural gas in this case. This will come as no surprise to those who have read Peter Huber and Mark Mills's excellent book. One of the illuminating points that the book reveals is that we, as a society, use a great deal of energy looking for and extracting more energy, and that by lowering the cost of finding energy over time we have been successful at finding ever more energy. Huber/Mills also decimate the argument in favor of using solar and wind power for fuel, "yes, wind and sun are free, but solar panels and wind turbines are expensive." So, while it makes no sense economically to convert sunlight and wind into energy to heat or light our homes, that doesn't mean that it is wasteful to use these technologies to look for and extract more fossil fuels. The economic cost of wind turbines to tap into a nat gas field is an entirely different animal than the economic cost of the same turbines to replace nat gas in powering the grid. Ultimately, the replacement of fossil fuel energy with solar or wind energy as the "finding and extracting" energy holds the potential to lower the overall cost of energy in our society, both in terms of resouces and environmental impact. Just further evidence that governments should not be picking winner and losers in the energy markets, but should be letting human ingenuity tackle our energy challenges.
P.S. Huber and Mills's book is a must read for anybody who wants to talk intelligently about energy, regardless of what policy side you want to advocate.
P.S. Huber and Mills's book is a must read for anybody who wants to talk intelligently about energy, regardless of what policy side you want to advocate.
2 Comments:
You ought to look at the learning curve for wind.
Every doubling in turbine size lowers the cost by 1/3. Turbine generatiions are on the order of five years. i.e. production turbine size doubles every five years. We are currently entering the 3 MW range for series production turbines.
The same learning curve coal fired plants went through from about 1900 to 1950 (I'm not sure of the doubling time for that era - only size vs capital costs). For the same reason. Size matters.
At this point the largest likely turbines are in the 12MW range. Large enough to bring wind in at below coal prices if the learning curve economics continues through that size range.
thanks, I will take a look at some of the details, but as a general matter I am thoroughly confident that traveling along learning curves will get us to remarkable places. and today we travel along learning curves so much more quickly - capital and ideas flow much more freely and quickly than they did from 1900 to 1950. As a consequence wind power isn't competing against the development path of coal technology from 1900 to 1950, but the development path from 2006 to ????. I am rooting for wind and solar, but I am not prepared to shackle improvements in existing technologies to see that happen. I think the "niching" of what type of power we use for what type of application is an important trend that will give alot more diverse technolgies a chance to play out well.
Post a Comment
<< Home