And jasg, YANS (Yet Another Naked Strawman) doesn’t cut it here.

As someone said long, long ago, “Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.” And, if you haven’t done the arithmetic your plans and schemes are doomed to failure.

And on the calculation of the number of wind turbines to replace a power station, it’s not too difficult to see that the Czech’s numbers are grossly overblown, however you calculate it. Again, he had been (mis)informed by another nuclear industry report.

juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100037119.3022.370&gen=1

masterresource.org/?p=1764

Each of those will make use of the usual http://www.

Have you estimated recently how many wind turbines with a nameplate rating of 2.5 MW are needed to replace a 1000 MW station supplying base load electricity generation? It’s an interesting number, imo.

Somewhat out of date but it does give another picture of the accounts. The taxes claw back some of the initial subsidies. However here’s a thought experiment. Imagine that oil was not required. Would there have been any gulf wars? If not, then you have to add those military costs in too.

But then subsidies aren’t bad. Subsidised power and infrastructure enables all other industries and endeavors to take place. Let’s just be sure it’s a level playing field though.

Here’s an article on the true cost of coal:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199312/cullen-mining

For my money, geothermal and natural gas are the ways to go. With a little wind and solar where abundant. If we can get inexpensive liquid sodium thorium reactors soon then that would almost be the holy grail.

As for the Czechs’s replacement of one nuclear power station story. I’ve heard this line many times before from the nuclear industry. It’s always been based on bogus accounting. They did the same with wave energy in the 70’s and killed that off too. I’d hazard a wild guess based on prior experience of this propaganda and say that they were exaggerating by about 10 times. I’ll check though. The nuclear lobby is very good at convincing politicians about how bad the alternatives are but they aren’t so forthcoming about the true costs of nuclear.

Clearly wind is side-dependent, no wind advocate denies that. There are vast wind resources available to be tapped – if we can build the transmission infrastructure and restructure how wind utilities are financed. And I can’t comment on wind resources for the Czech Republic. Spain however is now a world leader in wind. I think that the greatest amoung of investment right now should go into efficiency.

And the issue of environmentalists blocking it is a real problem. I am an environmentalist, an active hiker, and live in a windy area where wind development is popular. I chose not to renew my membership in a local environmental group because I thought they were too anti-wind. There was also a virulent anti-wind letter from the head of a local chapter of the Audubon Society. While siting policies need to be intelligent, as a hiker, I am willing to accept the “visual pollution” of windmills if that’s what it takes. I read that Iowa has now passed California on installed wind capacity. Somebody I know in California said the time required for the permitting process is the reason.

Here in Washington state, they are about to pass two laws which will streamline the permitting process for small wind energy sites. It’s about as bipartisan as anything can get. The more liberal urban populations love the environmentalism, and the economic boon from turbine land rental payments in the rural areas is enormous. Although some environmental groups are opposing these laws, last I saw, their initial votes are getting unanimous support in the state legislature.

“Vaclac Klaus from the Czech Republic in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” asked the question “Could the Czech Republic replace the power output from the Temelin nuclear power plant by wind?” Using conservative estimates the answer is yes but it would take 7,750 wind turbine power plants requiring 8.6 million tons of material and would cover a 413 mile long line of turbines 492 feet high, corresponding to a distance from Temelin in the southern Czech Republic to Brussels in Belgium or in the US, the distance from Concord, NH to Washington DC.”

Link: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BLOWINGINTHEWINDII.pdf

“Depending on the location, the median economic payback periods ranged from 2 to 132 years, 41% of the locations had median payback periods less than 10 years, and 63% less than 15 years, Considering a typical turbine lifespan of 15-30 years, wind turbines are not economically viable at all locations, At locations with favorable wind resources, wind turbines are likely to be superior to electricity production using natural gas or coal,”

http://www.stormingmedia.us/86/8625/A862514.html

So, I’ll back down and say that SOME wind generation schemes seem to be worth looking at (if the environmentalists don’t block their deployment, LOL).

“I would add that even completely mature technologies like oil and nuclear claim that they need subsidies, which they get in spades.”

Pray, tell me just how fossil fuels are subsidized. In the case of oil, they are in fact taxed extremely heavily–the total opposite of a subsidy. To compare oil with renewables, you have to add that tax to the cost of the renewable. The renewables are not cost-effective, even without adding the taxes. If renewables were cost-effective, we surely would not need all the governmental “help” to get people to use them. Come on, dreamers!

I certainly don’t believe facts put out by AWEA! This German study shows that wind energy is extremely expensive: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4527

Jae, I respect you, but you have been conned. It seems quite easy to con a conservative though (Iraq) But check out http://www.ifnotwind.org for the FAQ to find out that, perhaps surprisingly, there isn’t a great deal of downtime and backup fossil plants aren’t really needed. This is real life experience. Yes it’s another advocacy site but there are always two sides to every story and you aren’t well informed if you only get the one. There’s another bit of misinformation on the icecap site now – based on a single, biased and generally poor report by a second rate economist (cough, spit).

Meantime check out the subsidies that have been and are continuing to be funneled into nuclear and fossil fuel industries for generations, particularly nuclear and see if wind energy is especially favored – bearing in mind the fuel is free.

Regarding cables being set up in remote locations – most power stations are in remote locations and those that aren’t really should be. However, most of them also need their fuel dragged to that remote location by trucks and ships. Wind fuel by contrast is already in situ.

I like the phrase sustainable energy. I take it to mean roughly “the energy we’ll need to sustain 9 billion people by 2050″. It’s got to come from somewhere!

As for economics 101, I find that economics 201 contradicts it, and economics 301 contradicts 201, and real life tells us all these darn simplistic theories are wrong anyway. Adam Smith is the only fellow worth reading – at least he had humility and didn’t pretend to understand the unpredictable.