It's Not Inexpensive Being Green
Just in case you're spending the final days before Christmas pondering whether wind energy offers a good alternative to good ol' oil, coal and gas, a British Web site has the answer in a neat little table.
In sum, four wind stations cost from 75 million to 2.7 billion pounds to build, and generate electricity at a cost of 2.57 to 8.11 pounds per watt.
Conventional power is much cheaper. A nuclear plant cost 2 million pounds to build and generates electricity for 1.67 pounds per watt. A coal/CO2 plant generates power at the same amount per watt but cost half as much to build. The cheapest power, not at all suprisingly, came from the cheapest plant, a gas plant that cost just 350 million pounds to build, and cranks out watts at 0.58 pounds.
Here's all that data and more in a table:
For comparison:
Jon at Greenie Watch points out that the costs don't accurately reflect the true cost of wind power: Every wind station has to have a conventional plant behind it so there's power when the wind isn't blowing -- doubling the capital cost of the plant.
Back in about '76 I bought a book called "Earth, Energy and Everyone" that showed how alternative energy could supply all our needs by 1990 -- without burning a lump of coal or drop of oil.
That didn't work out too well, because of what the wind farm figures above show: Environmentalism works great for rich people, but not so well for others.
Related Tags: Environmentalism, Wind power
In sum, four wind stations cost from 75 million to 2.7 billion pounds to build, and generate electricity at a cost of 2.57 to 8.11 pounds per watt.
Conventional power is much cheaper. A nuclear plant cost 2 million pounds to build and generates electricity for 1.67 pounds per watt. A coal/CO2 plant generates power at the same amount per watt but cost half as much to build. The cheapest power, not at all suprisingly, came from the cheapest plant, a gas plant that cost just 350 million pounds to build, and cranks out watts at 0.58 pounds.
Here's all that data and more in a table:
STATION | Type | Price | Rated Power | Capacity Factor | Available Power | Source of info | Price per watt |
------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
Hadyard Hill | Wind | £85M | 100MW | .33 | 33MW | BWEA | £2.57 |
Solway Firth (proposed) | Wind | £375M | 180MW | .33 | 60MW | BBC | £5.41 |
Scroby Sands | Wind | £75M | 60MW | .33 | 20MW | BBC | £3.75 |
Whitstable | Wind | £2700M | 1000MW | .33 | 333MW | Business Week | £8.11 |
For comparison:
Olkiluoto 3, Finland | Nuclear | £2000M | 1600MW | .75 | 1200MW | BBC | £1.67 |
Severn Power | Gas | £350M | 800MW | .75 | 600MW | BBC | £0.58 |
Kingsnorth (proposed) | Coal | £1000M | 1600MW | .75 | 1200MW | E.On | £0.83 |
Killingholme (proposed) | Coal / CO2 storage | £1000M | 800MW | .75 | 600MW | BBC | £1.67 |
Jon at Greenie Watch points out that the costs don't accurately reflect the true cost of wind power: Every wind station has to have a conventional plant behind it so there's power when the wind isn't blowing -- doubling the capital cost of the plant.
Back in about '76 I bought a book called "Earth, Energy and Everyone" that showed how alternative energy could supply all our needs by 1990 -- without burning a lump of coal or drop of oil.
That didn't work out too well, because of what the wind farm figures above show: Environmentalism works great for rich people, but not so well for others.
Related Tags: Environmentalism, Wind power
<< Home