A different article puts the energy costs at: "140 pounds ($185) per megawatt-hour on top of the current wholesale power price in the UK, which is about 49 pounds ($65) per megawatt-hour"
Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
1) What does Big Oil's subsidies (including special tax breaks) look like?
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
I'm in favor of subsidies for clean energy, but I'm also in favor of calling a spade a spade.
Pretty much every subsidy nowadays has some "for the public good" narrative, some more believable than others. I don't think having a better such narrative than average makes it not a "subsidy in the traditional sense".
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
I don't want to assume, so I have to ask: Do you understand the difference between an expense and an investment?
To clarify, it's not narrative if $X today aims to save $X x Y and Z lives tomorrow, to say nothing of the social and sociopolitical disruption. That's still a subsidy? I don't agree; at all.
Oil & Gas $0.95/MWh
Coal $1.07/MWh
Nuclear $1.74/MWh
Wind $15.15/MWh
Solar $42.51/MWh
Other RE $22.85/MWh
[1] /Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies/, https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_S...
> By 2030, Statoil says, it hopes to bring the cost of floating offshore wind down to €40-60 per MWh ($50-74 per MWh).
Even if the cost decline curve starts to flatten, the fate of fossil and nuclear generators is sealed.
To use a simple example outside of renewables, it's now more expensive than ever before in US history to complete a large infrastructure project (say, a new bridge across the Hudson River), but you can buy a $40 Raspberry Pi that has more processing capacity than all the billions of dollars worth of computers that existed in the 60s.
Floating towers are definitely a revolution in wind farm building.
(I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)
Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.
1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s!
2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive).
So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important).
[1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
The large turbines typically operate up to 25m/s and then shut down for safety. Really large offshore turbines operate ideally at an average of 11m/s [1]. You can also see some real data here [2].
However, what investors (or farm operators) really care about it LCOE. Levelized cost of Energy over the lifetime of the machine. It's that $50/MWh and considers the revenue (roughly proportional to v^3) and all the costs. After that it's an optimization game:
- Too far = costly maintenance, costly installation, longer cables, rougher seas - Too close = not enough wind (but "cheap" installation)
(Plus many other important factors: risk, incentives, NIMBY, access to capital, wind turbulence, etc, etc)
[0] https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a [1] http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbine... [2] http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm
False. Every industry has what's known as the learning curve. It is this curve which is responsible for e.g., the 90% drop in cost of solar panels since 2000.
Wind turbine manufacture, blade manufacture, mooring, installation, maintenance, management, all are following a significant industrial learning curve and there is every reason to expect it to continue to behave like other industries.
As for the bridge: the concrete business doesn't see a lot of innovation.
Still if corrected for inflation and aiming for similar durability, it wouldn't surprise me if today's engineering can build cheaper bridges. After all, we've learned a thing or two about suspension bridges over the years.