Wind Economics

I have tried to make some estimates of the costs of wind power.

1. To make Ohio entirely dependent on wind, would require adding 50-60 GW to replace the current 34 GW capacity, provided about 20-30 GW of conventional (probably gas) is used as a supplement when the wind isn't blowing. Assuming $2/W construction costs for both technologies, we get $140-180 billion.

2. Since each MW has about $2 million construction cost, a 2MW tower (plus gas supplement) would cost maybe $5-6 million.

3. Illinois has roughly the same population as Ohio. It has 915 MW wind making 1.06 percent of its electricity. Adjusting for the population difference, Ohio would require almost 400 towers to get one percent.

Solar Costs

On 31 March 2009, the Columbus Dispatch printed an article by Mary Beth Lane extolling solar power. Their prime example was a US Forestry Service project to provide solar panels to the Wayne National Forest HQ. Cost = $398,000; estimated electricity savings = $10,000 - $ 16,000 annually. This amounts to a 10 to 40 year payback time. Of course, the Forestry Service gets the money via an appropriation, so that they are not paying interest. But it's a cost that adds to the National debt, so that the interest cost does not affect the Forestry Service.

More bothersome is the statement by the head of Green Energy Ohio (GEO) that solar panels pay for themselves in ten years. This does not jibe with the example above or with Ann's experience. Perhaps there is a large subsidy implied in the GEO which I haven't accounted for.

Conservation Saves Money and Energy

In the New York Times for March 29, Thomas L. Friedman cited Hal Harvey of 'Climate Works'. Harvey's five proven policies to fight climate change are:

1. energy-efficient building and appliance codes
2. better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards
3. utilities to produce 15-20% energy from renewables by 2020
4. decoupling (utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy, rather than use it)
5. carbon tax

Clearly nos. 1,2,4, and 5 are conservation. Only 3 is alternative energy. Since a conference reported in MIT Energy Weekly noted that conservation is cheaper than alternative energy, Harvey seems to be making sense.