I think you may be missing something here. Of course the capital cost of wind farms is higher than other energy technologies, but the recurring cost is very small. No fuel and very little maintenance is needed. Note that GW are a unit of power, not energy, so any "$/W" figure (such as the one you cite) is likely to be a capital cost of installed capacity. The cost to compare is the total "$/J" figure, including both amortized capital costs and recurring (i.e. per-joule) expenses.
The arguments I've heard claim that the capital cost per watt is offset by the near-zero recurring costs per joule (compared with very high recurring cost for something like a nuclear reactor) to such an extent that the costs of these two forms of energy are about the same in the end. I'm not really taking a strong position on one form of energy versus the other, I'm just saying that's not the whole argument. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics_and_feasibility for a more detailed discussion. Of course, I agree that measurements in kWh are an annoying habit of the media. Joules are much easier to work with. --- Stan Jakuba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Concerning your "Wind Capacity Blows Away Record" article (March 2008) I do > not share your > enthusiasm for this source of electricity for economy reasons. According to > the article, a 5.2 > GW (billion watts) nameplate capacity was installed for 9 G$ (billion > dollars) in 2007. > Considering that the actual production is only about a fifth of the nameplate > (it is reduced > with the so called capacity factor and for the field power fed into the > generator from the > outside) one ends up with 9 dollars for each watt of net output (9 G$ / 1 GW) > - a > disproportionate sum in comparison with, for example, the 1.5 $/W with nukes > to cite an example > of a non-CO2-generating source of electricity. > > Wind proponents might argue that wind plants are about three times cheaper > than, for example, > the PV plants (30 $/W). True, but one might expect a breakthrough in that > price. Not so with the > wind turbines - they are performing too close to their theoretical efficiency > limit already to > produce appreciably more power per cost in the future. Cost reduction due to > mass manufacturing > is also unlikely considering that just about all wind mills worldwide are > made in Denmark, mass > produced. > > On a related subject, please let your reader notice that using SI units and > prefixes makes > comparisons among energy numbers immediate. They eliminate the need for > conversions among the > plethora of energy units (Btu, kWh, therms, joules, etc.) along with the > not-so rare conversion > mistakes. Values in SI let us compare all parameters be it a capital outlay > such as $/W or $/m², > costs such as in fuel or electricity (both in $/GJ), the amount of space > taken in W/m², annual > consumption/production in joules (EJ), annual average power in watts (GW), > etc. Once everyone > use SI, we'll be better positioned for cooperation in solving the energy > crisis. As in all > fields of engineering, by using SI we will soon remember energy and power > reference values > because the numbers will be unified and ubiquitous. Cross-disciplines > communication becomes > easier. The multi-meaning numbers "billion", "milliard" and similar words > causing confusion > today will become clear when replaced with the giga- or whatever appropriate, > prefix. > > Stan Jakuba > member of ASME > 43 Westbrook Rd > West Hartford CT 06107 > Tel: 860 521 7924 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
