[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Editorial: Warnings over energy  

Credit:  Herald Staff | Boston Herald | July 23, 2016 | www.bostonherald.com ~~

Back on its business pages, The New York Times has provided a sober warning to the starry-eyed environmentalists who are trying to convert the entire U.S. economy to renewable energy sources, mostly solar and wind power technologies.

European countries that have embraced these technologies with abandon reportedly are having second thoughts because of the high costs, often disguised by generous subsidies.

Germany, for instance, is dropping its plan to end coal-fired generation and considering a subsidy to maintain existing coal plants on standby. It is ending unlimited subsidies for wind and solar power and is planning to limit additional renewable capacity.

Renewables are costly because the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine half the day. Without a breakthrough in battery technology, utilities still have to maintain conventional power plants to keep the lights on.

The Energy Department has estimated that in 2020, after the expiration of most subsidies, a conventional U.S. coal-fired plant would cost $60 per megawatt-hour over its lifetime, a natural-gas plant $40, a nuclear plant $70 and a solar plant $110 to $192 depending on the technology used. Onshore wind would cost $58, similar to coal, but would be available only 36 percent of the time compared with 85 percent for coal.

And carbon-free nuclear power, even from already paid-for plants, is unprofitable when competing against natural gas.

Electricity in Germany costs 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about three times the average U.S. cost.

Denmark, where the cost is similar, must limit wind power input into its grid to avoid harmful fluctuations. When the wind is strong, it must export electricity to Norway and Sweden – which represents a Danish subsidy to the receiving countries that can’t be fully offset by return flows.

Could subsidy money produce more emission reduction in other uses? It’s an open question. Remember, be careful what you wish for.

Source:  Herald Staff | Boston Herald | July 23, 2016 | www.bostonherald.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.