Wind now cost competitive with coal

[billvon 3,132]

Interesting report from HSBC. In India, wind power is now at price parity with coal. India has an interesting problem that will be facing more and more people as time goes on - not enough water to run coal power plants. Thus they are paying for coal _and_ water, and wind power doesn't require either.

======================
Wind Now Cost Competitive With Coal in India
By Katherine Tweed
Posted 23 Jul 2013 | 21:29 GMT

In India, the expiration of some federal incentives for renewable energy last year has not put a damper on the outlook for wind and solar power.

Wind power is now cost competitive with new coal-fired generation in India, according to a report from HSBC. Falling costs are just one reason for the increased interest in wind. For the first time, India has identified water as a scare natural resource in its most recent five-year plan. Nearly 90 percent of India’s industrial water demand comes from thermal power plants, according to the HSBC report.

The appeal of some renewables, such as wind and solar photovoltaic, is that they use far less water than coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants. Across the globe, water stress is growing within the energy industry and power plants have to partially shut down when there isn’t enough water for cooling. In India, water shortages just before monsoon season in 2012 forced hydro generation and thermal power plants to partially close.

India needs all the power it can get. Last July, a sweeping power outage left about 700 million people without power. Outages are a daily occurrence in India, although usually not at that scale, because of a dearth of generation coupled with an outdated grid. The Central Electricity Authority estimates India has a peak deficit of 12 gigawatts.

The latest five-year plan calls for a doubling of renewable energy from the previous plan, including 15 gigawatts of wind, 10 gigawatts of solar, 2 gigawatts of small hydro and nearly 3 gigawatts of biomass. Individual Indian states have also instituted solar and wind installation targets.
===============================



http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/wind-now-cost-competitive-with-coal-in-india

[DanG 1]

Good thing water is an abundant resource everywhere in the US.

Oh wait...

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Wind power is proving troublesome in India. A few weeks ago, the Indian government told wind farms that they had to provide a forecast in 15 minute increments 24 hours in advance. Why? Because the wind power is unsteady and the power ebbs and flows from wind generation are wreaking havoc on the power supply.

Meanwhile, the green revolution in Europe is causing all kinds of problems. Both Siemens and Bosch have announced in the past few months that they are shuttering their solar branches due to losses of $2 billion - $3 billion between them. Plenty of Euro governments are also ending subsidies. German people are paying 200% more for electricity now than a few years ago because of renewables (solar power provided a great boost in summer and produced practically nothing for six months of the year).

It's still being figured out. Wind power may become as affordable. It's apparently experiencing big issues with reliability

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Wind power is proving troublesome in India.

Definitely. Wind is not a reliable source of power by its very design. I think what places like India are realizing is that coal isn't such a great source of energy either. It's not a decision between two great options - it's a decision between the least bad of two options.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Good thing water is an abundant resource everywhere in the US.

Oh wait...

It's actually pretty amazing how much water is available but not authorized for use. Here in California's Central Valley there are real problems. According to a ruling by the now-retired Judge Ollie Wanger, the EPA's rules for water discharge were arbitrary because they considered the effects of water usage on every organism except humans. Last year, rather than allowing recharging of groundwater or reservoirs, the gates were opened to allow millions of acre feet of water to run into the Pacific to determine the effects on river and stream wildlife. It had NO effect. Meanwhile, the west side of the valley is damned near desolate.

Windmills can probably help with some power. But considering the vast numbers of bats and raptors that they slay, there are other issues, too. Can we protect wildlife with them?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Everything is about costs and benefits. Wind power has some advantages and disadvantages. Whether it's beneficial or not depends on what each individual finds important.

Here in the Central Valley, the Delta Smelt is given priority over farms, food, and work. Some disagree with the policy. Others support it. Those who support it have been winning.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Here in the Central Valley, the Delta Smelt is given priority over farms, food, and work.

Problems with the Central Valley water supplies are just going to get worse. With the sea level rising around there 2mm a year, and the sea encroaching formerly fresh-water delta area, it's going to be harder and harder to use the water there. Already several pumping stations have had to shut down because they were starting to suck salt water into the water system.

Decades ago politicians there faced a similar decision. "Nature or farmers? Save some worthless land or let farmers feed their families?" They went with the farmers, and they built a system of levees so farmers could farm the floodplain.

Since then, subsidence caused by that farming has deepened the basin by ten feet in places. The sea, of course, then flows in. This has to be balanced by increased water releases from the delta's water sources, primarily the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. This, of course, means less water for the very farmers that politicians were trying to help. (And of course less water for all the life in the delta.) By giving the farmers exactly what they asked for, they doomed future farmers to a life of chronic water shortages and steadily subsiding farmland.

I can understand them not wanting to make the same mistake twice. There are no good answers now, just more and less painful choices.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]With the sea level rising around there 2mm a year, and the sea encroaching formerly fresh-water delta area, it's going to be harder and harder to use the water there.

[billvon 3,132]

> First - the central Valley is at least 100 feet above sea level south of modesto.

Right; water is pumped there from the San Joaquin - Sacramento river delta. Which is where the problem lies.

>Second, check out Alameda's tide gauge readings.

From that site: "The mean sea level trend is 0.82 millimeters/year." It's the lowest rise rate in the area. I don't know if you looked at the other nearby sites; the average is about 2 mm a year.

>Second - the story of the levees is long and exhausting. Fundamentally, they
>were privately built. Then the feds moved in and it's been a nightmare since.

That's as informative as saying "fundamentally, the government sets a reasonable policy. Then farmers got involved and it's been a nightmare ever since."

The farming of the delta was just the first step in a long series of mistakes that led to today's central valley water problem. And it's getting worse. Even if you "don't believe" in sea level rise, or think it's less than a mm a year, that's still going to cause problems. Not because the water isn't going to flow, but the line between fresh and salt waster is going to move further inland. So even if farmers agree to never increase the amount of water they use the problem will continue to get worse.

>There is mighty fine water storage in the sierras.

Yep. And there's mighty fine water flowing down the Colorado River. We use all of it.

>And the ONLY solution I can see to it is to drain and restore Hetch Hetchy.

OK, we could do that. Farmers would then have to live on 0% of the water they are getting now. Which might be the right thing to do in the long run; farming in a desert was always a dicey proposition.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

The issue here is farmers are expecting under 10% delivery of water next year. If that. Not because there isn't water that could be delivered. It's been the choice to let that water go into the Pacific. The litigation over it has been fierce.

As I wrote in the fracking thread, agriculture uses 75% of the water supply in California, so let's maintain some perspective when you talk about the smelt or the San Franciscans killing the poor farmers. I pay a hell of a lot more per unit of water, too.

[Bertt 0]

But what if there were small, modular nuclear reactors built into the grid along with wind generators? I wonder if anybody around here has thought of that.....?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[billvon 3,132]

>But what if there were small, modular nuclear reactors built into the grid along with
>wind generators?

Somebody should think about that!

[grue 1]

billvon

>But what if there were small, modular nuclear reactors built into the grid along with
>wind generators?

Somebody should think about that!

Isn't that precisely what project Hyperion was gonna be for? Not sure what ever came of that company

cavete terrae.

[livendive 8]

lawrocket

Everything is about costs and benefits. Wind power has some advantages and disadvantages. Whether it's beneficial or not depends on what each individual finds important.

Here in the Central Valley, the Delta Smelt is given priority over farms, food, and work. Some disagree with the policy. Others support it. Those who support it have been winning.

Past water management in the Central Valley has been so ridiculously stupid that the delta smelt should be a non-issue. A rights management system that allows a guy enough water to operate a trout farm in the middle of the freaking desert so long as he can prove he has before (by taking groundwater), and wailing and gnashing of teeth any time anyone suggests a bit of reason and conservation. Massive water intensive crops, unregulated overdraft of groundwater, a Colorado River that really shouldn't be called that anymore (as it doesn't reach the ocean), zero investment in infrastructure, and a whole lot of crying by people unwilling to live in synergy with the environment they chose.

At least San Diego is propping up a desalination plant. The rest of California going to have to do that and more recycling and probably still have another standoff with the Arizona National Guard in 40-50 years. I'd worry about the Columbia River, but I don't see how you could cost effectively transport it that far...maybe an underwater aquaduct just offshore? Alaskan fisheries and California water are probably the two most poorly managed natural resources in the US in the last 40 years, though there may be a logging region in contention somewhere too. At least the Alaskans are trying now. I wouldn't say the same about California. As environmentally conscious as the state purports to be, that's one subject on which most of the state deserve an F. I'm reminded of Sam Kinison's thoughts on starving people in Ethiopia...

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)