Collapse of projects shows again that wind power is not affordable

Affordable alternative no more.....................

Nor practical...


And it is a fucking eyesore!

But when government provides subsidies to businesses, the investment decisions are made by folks who get to play with other people's money.

So I assume the author is opposed to oil company subsides as well?

It is expensive to develop new technologies, even when those technologies have the possibility of providing unlimited renewable energy, but our currently technology is very very close, but not quite up to the task.  Unfortunately, too many people think we should just give up on those things and keep burning a limited resource until we run completely out.

Or we could continue developing the technology, build the infrastructure and not turn off the oil spigot until technology is ready and enough windmills are in place.  The same goes for battery cars.  Develop, get the infrastructure in place and go for it. 

And that is what is happening.   It is not even a choice.   We will continue to migrate from fossil fuel to renewables based primarily on economic factors (secondarily on environmental factors).   The oil infrastructure will be exploited until the economics no longer favor doing so.

The infrastructure for new, disruptive technology must be developed before the technology can be deployed.   Thus it is necessary to do some level of seeding (e.g. charging stations).    Given the success of the technology and the market interest, it is clear that EVs will continue to grow regardless of the ebbs and flows of the market.   That does not preclude other forms of energy (e.g. hydrogen), it simply states that EVs are a proven technology with market traction and thus they are almost certainly here to stay.

EVs are a proven technology with market traction and thus they are almost certainly here to stay.

I am not sure the technology is quite there from a cost standpoint and battery longevity standpoint.  And while there is some market traction my issue has more with the government trying to force people to change before the technology is more affordable and the infrastructure is there and stopping oil production before that happens.  Traveling a distance with an EV right now is pretty impossible.  

One thing at a time seems a better way to go.  As more infrastructure is in place and price comes down the market will take care of selling cars.  Putting an artificial date on car manufacturers and people buying cars seems more like a political decision to make the green folks happy and not necessarily a good decision for Americans in general.

seems more like a political decision to make the green folks happy and not necessarily a good decision for Americans in general.

And right there we have it ladies and gents...............

I am not sure the technology is quite there from a cost standpoint and battery longevity standpoint.

The costs are sufficient to grow a viable market (demonstrably) and they will naturally reduce with economies of scale.   Battery longevity (years of service) remains to be seen but the expectation is 10 to 20 years and the technology continues to improve ... encouraged by the market conditions.   

And while there is some market traction my issue has more with the government trying to force people to change before the technology is more affordable and the infrastructure is there and stopping oil production before that happens. 

The government is governed by the market in this regard.   They can put up all sorts of guidelines and mandates, but as we say with LED lights, the pace of conversion is dictated by the market.

Traveling a distance with an EV right now is pretty impossible.  

How do you come to that conclusion??   There are already many charging stations and EVs can go as high as 300 miles on a charge.   The lower end EVs (at ~110 miles) are unrealistic, but most EVs are well above that.

As more infrastructure is in place and price comes down the market will take care of selling cars.

As I noted.

Putting an artificial date on car manufacturers and people buying cars seems more like a political decision to make the green folks happy and not necessarily a good decision for Americans in general.

As noted, the government will bend to the market just as they did with LEDs.

How do you come to that conclusion??   There are already many charging stations and EVs can go as high as 300 miles on a charge. 

Tell you what.  Travel from LA to Boston and tell me how it goes.  Tell me how often you get to a place that has an open slot for you to charge and tell me how long it takes your car to charge.

         the government will bend to the market just as they did with LEDs.

You have more faith in the government than I do.  Taking something like this back will start an uproar with the greenies and I would think it would be a political nightmare.  But we shall see.

Or we could continue developing the technology

Without subsides?  Where is the money for developing the technology supposed to come from???

Never said without subsidies.  Just not unlimited with no oversight.

How do you come to that conclusion??   There are already many charging stations and EVs can go as high as 300 miles on a charge. 

There are a few that now break 700 miles per charge, however the current average of 2023 EV's is around 500 miles.

... however the current average of 2023 EV's is around 500 miles.

I would rephrase that as the current maximum range for the higher end EVs is around 500 miles per charge.

Personally, I am more interested in the typical range for cars that most of the market would purchase. 

There are a few that now break 700 miles per charge

Which models?

the current average of 2023 EV's is around 500 miles.

GRIDSERVE thinks the average is less than half of that:

gridserve

Without subsides?  Where is the money for developing the technology supposed to come from???

The Feds subsidizes grains, oilseeds, cotton, sugar, and dairy products very heavily.  High tech sugar?

Travel from LA to Boston and tell me how it goes.

Most people use their vehicles for local travel.   You leap to the most extreme situation where rather than drive, most would fly or take a train or bus.

Best to use the most common usage scenario when evaluating a technology.

You have more faith in the government than I do.

My comment has nothing to do with faith in the government but rather on the fact that the market is the 800lb gorilla.   The government will not be able to control the market.

wouldn't even take that. Chicago to Atlanta is 700+ miles depending on routing

We go to Lake George every year.  Several hundred miles and lots of traffic along the way.  Not to mention very few places to charge a car once you get there along with the thousands of others that go.

We have a long way to be ready to be serious about this without the government making demands on Manufacturers or consumers.

According to AAA they have a ways to go before people feel comfortable.   

• Higher purchase price – 60%
• Concern there are not enough places to charge – 60%
• Concern about running out of charge when driving – 58%
• Unsuitable for long-distance travel – 55%
• High cost of battery repair or replacement – 55%
• Unable to install a charging station where they live – 31%

Travel from LA to Boston and tell me how it goes.  Tell me how often you get to a place that has an open slot for you to charge and tell me how long it takes your car to charge.

Add:

• Is the charging slot available 24/7/365? Slow or quick charging?
• If slow charge, we might have to sleep at a motels/hotels while the EV charges and buy meals which will then greatly increase the cost of our trip.
• Does the charger actually work? (Many have been found to be inoperable, i.e., "broken")

Most people use their vehicles for local travel.

That's purely a broad assumption. My grandparents, aunts, uncles, and their children made several cross-country road trips starting in the 1930s. My wife and I have done the same with our children in the 21st century. It's a terrific way to experience the beauty and history of our nation, and I highly recommend it.

Yep, long way to go.  They might come up with a flux capacitor about the same time this is  ready to go.

Not that they should stop, they should understand what it will take to get there and time it out better.

It is almost like you have to have 2 cars.  1 electric for around town (assuming you can charge it art home) or you want to travel under 400 miles (300 in the winter) unless you are sure there is someplace to plug it in on the way and one gas car if you want to see grandma a couple states away or go on vacation.  According to AAA it seems lots of people still drive on vacations and holidays

They might come up with a flux capacitor about the same time this is  ready to go.

O'Reilly Auto Parts has them.  

oreillyauto

That's purely a broad assumption.

It is not an assumption.   You can get stats like this easily:  Car Travel

• Roughly 1.2 Billion (Bn) vehicles operate on the planet every day. (AAA)
• Every day, there are some 70 Million (M) worldwide driving trips.
• The average trip duration globally is 15 minutes long.
• The average trip distance globally is 15 Kilometers / 9.3 miles.

And one could also simply apply logic.   When the average person buys a car (not a recreational vehicle), do they buy it primarily for long distance travel or for the local trips (e.g. to store, to work) in their daily lives?

When you buy a car, do you buy it because you intend to spend most of your mileage traveling from LA to Boston or traveling around town?

Note:  I have not argued that people never use their cars for long trips.   I have argued that the most common usage scenario for a vehicle is for local trips (work, school, stores, events, etc.)

People who own an EV have the option to use it for a long trip.   It is not as convenient due to recharge, but it certainly is an option.   If the trip is about 500 miles, they would need to stop for appx. 30 minutes and recharge. to make the trip.   

It is a choice that people get to make.   And those people are rarely traveling LA to Boston but frequently traveling to get their kids to the Hockey game.

Add:

Why add anything?   If the normal travel was thousands of miles rather than local then adding makes sense.   But when the common usage pattern is not thousands of miles of travel by auto, you are simply looking at the outlier rather than the norm.

Why?

I would rephrase that as the current maximum range for the higher end EVs is around 500 miles per charge.

You are probably correct. 

Current technologies are allowing 500 - 700 mile ranges, but only the high end EV manufacturers have the cash to invest in the newest technologies.  In 5-10 years all EV's will average 500 - 700 mile ranges and the high ends will no doubt be double that.

Manufacturer                                                   Cost         actual     est

Not sure where you are pulling this from " Current technologies are allowing 500 - 700 mile ranges" but here in the real world this is what is being produced.

What's The Real World Highway Range Of Today's Electric Cars? We Test To Find Out (insideevs.com)

"Traveling a distance with an EV right now is pretty impossible."

I think that when battery longevity (and fireproofing) is improved and adequate charging stations with short recharger times are in place, and I believe it is inevitable that that will happen "down the road" (to borrow a coined phrase) EV will be the way to go.  In the meantime, I would choose a hybrid so I would feel more secure for a longer drive.  I was impressed with the concept of the Prius when it first came out.   

I would not take that quote seriously.   It is hyperbole:   Stations: LA to Boston

If someone is taking a long trip with an EV, the problem today is the time it takes to recharge.    The above generated route from LA to Boston (a worst case scenario) shows only DC Fast stations (the fastest chargers in existence) which charge a vehicle to 80% in 20-60 minutes (depends on the recharge rate of your EV).   There are 560 of these high speed chargers that are within 5 miles of the route.

LA to Boston is ~3,000 miles.   If an EV gets 300 miles per charge then at 80% it can go 240 miles.   Assuming only an 80% charge, it will need to recharge to 80% 13 (12.5) times during the trip.   Thus this will add between 250 minutes to 750 minutes to the Google maps estimated 44 hour trip. 

This is not next to impossible, the proper characterization is inconvenient (slower, need to map out stations).   If you want to make the trip in an EV, then you need to add between 4 hours 10 minutes (250 minutes) to 12 hours 30 minutes (750 minutes) to your trip (depending upon the recharge speed and capacity of your EV).   For an ICE, you would need to add 1 hour 40 minutes to your trip.

This analysis does not account for the fact that in a 3,000 mile trip, you will naturally stop to rest (including sleep).   So one can charge to 100% overnight while sleeping and thus require fewer charges and not adding to the time of your trip.  There are 4,689 EV chargers along this route (not limiting to the fastest chargers as I did in the analysis).

Personally, I would fly rather than drive 3,000 miles regardless of the vehicle.   But if someone is keen on driving, it is quite doable today and these factors will continue to improve each year.

But when the common usage pattern is not thousands of miles of travel by auto, you are simply looking at the outlier rather than the norm.

When someone is considering buying a car they want one that will meet all their needs, not just most of them.

when

Yes, and when is the key word

People have all sorts of reasons for making purchases.   You are trying to impose your priorities (a vehicle that can make long trips) onto the public in general.   Bad presumption.

Those who have a green priority (for example) will certainly look for EVs today.   Those who do not make super long trips (e.g. your example of LA to Boston) likely prioritize the need to charge on the way lower than you do.   And even if they do make an occasional long trip my analysis @2.1.29 shows that this is certainly doable albeit less convenient.   So even long EV trips are not a show-stopper (logically).

My point is that the market clearly exists ... there clearly are plenty of people whose needs are sufficiently met by an EV.   Especially those who buy an EV for green, economical reasons and largely for local commutes (a very common usage scenario). 

Folks like you will continue with the ICE as long as it suits your needs.   The ICE market will continue for the foreseeable future.

Not everyone has your priorities.

Personally, I still drive an ICE.   That is because my priority is on style, functionality, etc. and for my purposes a Mini Cooper is perfect.   The current Mini Cooper EV has a pathetic range of about 100 mpc and I find that unacceptable for my purposes.   However, when the newer Mini Cooper EV emerges with a 200+ mpc range, that is sufficient for my purposes and I will strongly consider it for my next vehicle.

You are trying to impose your priorities (a vehicle that can make long trips) onto the public in general.   Bad presumption.

Actually I am going by AAA.  Seems unsuitable for long distance comes in fourth place with regards for concern but it is still over 50%.  

• Higher purchase price – 60%
• Concern there are not enough places to charge – 60%
• Concern about running out of charge when driving – 58%
• Unsuitable for long-distance travel – 55%
• High cost of battery repair or replacement – 55%
• Unable to install a charging station where they live – 31%

These are just reasons why people are dissuaded from an EV.   Yet we have a viable market so clearly the EV is meeting the priorities of many buyers.   One could put up a list of reasons why people are dissuaded from ICE vehicles too.   Every technology has pros and cons.  As I noted, people have different priorities.   Clearly the EVs (even today) satisfy the priorities of a great many buyers.

Since we already have sufficient buyers to comprise a viable market, it is logical that as EVs continue to improve (and become more economical) more buyers will join the market.  

Traveling long distances with a quick refuel is not everyone's top priority.   But just do an extrapolation (a thought experiment) and imagine when we see EVs typically in the 500 to 1,000 mpc range.   (1,000 miles = driving continuously at 70mph for 14h 15m.)   Do you think those who buy ICE because of the driving range will become interested in EVs for that very reason?

The technology will continue to improve as long as there is a viable market.   And in the meantime, the EV clearly satisfies the top priorities for many consumers.

It is expensive to develop new technologies, even when those technologies have the possibility of providing unlimited renewable energy, but our currently technology is very very close, but not quite up to the task.

Did you miss the part of the article where it cited inflation, higher interest rates that drive up capital costs and severe kinks in the supply chain as a part of the problem?  

Maybe if the Biden Dumpster Fire got those under control it would be easier to implement some of these projects, but since they don't this is where we are.

It is expensive to develop new technologies, even when those technologies have the possibility of providing unlimited renewable energy, but our currently technology is very very close, but not quite up to the task.  Unfortunately, too many people think we should just give up on those things and keep burning a limited resource until we run completely out.

These are not new technologies.  The wind and solar technologies being deployed today were fully developed and piloted in the 1970s at government expense.  NASA has been utilizing alternative energy sources since the 1960s.  Electrified transportation (trams, trains, cars, etc.) has been in use for over a century.  There has been incremental improvements in that technology but electrified transportation is not a recent disruptive development.  

These alternative energy technologies were being explored when the first warnings of climate change were made well over a century ago.  A century of development has not been sufficient?

These are not new technologies.

Technology is what makes useable.  Computers used to be the size of warehouses with people working inside them, technology is what made them small enough to fit in your pocket and provide hundreds of times more capabilities than the space shuttles used to have.

And while an investor will walk away from a project that's going down the tubes, government agencies will keep throwing good money after bad — there's no cost to them, and it hurts to publicly admit you're wrong.

This seed seems gleeful to see any setback.    Why would anyone be happy to see a form of renewable energy fail??   

Anyway, the big picture shows that wind power is viable and growing.   The growth will naturally ebb and flow due to changing conditions, but generally there is substantial indication that wind power is a viable technology for renewable energy.

This technology is not going to just go away; its demise will be a result of a new, better technology emerging.   For example, the commercial deployment of an effective nuclear fusion energy source.

gwec

This seed seems gleeful to see any setback.    Why would anyone be happy to see a form of renewable energy fail??

It's not that it's gleeful per se but rather a slow the hell down. Seems some someone has an idea and it must be realized almost immediately. It's the "hurry up and jump on board" mostly driven by profit seekers without seeing things completely through. I am reminded of an old story I once heard.

And old bull and a young bull were standing on a hillside looking down at a field of cows. The young bull says "Let's run down and screw one!" The wise old bull retorts "Let's walk down and screw them all".

I am sure you can see the lesson within.

What a charming 'story'

Soooo glad you enjoyed it. 

It's not that it's gleeful per se but rather a slow the hell down.

What makes you think there is a need to slow down?   Every technology and every technology market will have ebbs and flows.   That is perfectly normal.

We should be moving to renewable energy at a quick, but practical pace — governed by the market but encouraged by nation states.   I think we are.   Why do you think we are not?

This seed seems gleeful to see any setback.    Why would anyone be happy to see a form of renewable energy fail?? 

Are you confusing 'gleeful' with 'vindicated'?  A number of highly rational, intelligent people have been warning that the planned transition would fail due to unreasonable expectations.  The seeded article seems to be more of a 'we told ya so' review of the state of transition.

Anyway, the big picture shows that wind power is viable and growing.   The growth will naturally ebb and flow due to changing conditions, but generally there is substantial indication that wind power is a viable technology for renewable energy.

The technical viability of wind and solar energy was demonstrated during the 1970s at government expense.  But those old government documents haven't been digitized so, apparently, that knowledge has been lost.

This technology is not going to just go away; its demise will be a result of a new, better technology emerging.   For example, the commercial deployment of an effective nuclear fusion energy source.

Are you sure?  A number of solar and wind technologies have gone away already.  Remember solar thermal energy?

Are you sure? 

Pretty sure since I am talking about wind technology.   Wind technology is out there in abundance.   Basic economics will determine the future.   As I stated, wind technology is not going to just go away; its demise will be a result of a new, better technology emerging.   For example, the commercial deployment of an effective nuclear fusion energy source.

Pretty sure since I am talking about wind technology.   Wind technology is out there in abundance.   Basic economics will determine the future.   As I stated, wind technology is not going to just go away; its demise will be a result of a new, better technology emerging.   For example, the commercial deployment of an effective nuclear fusion energy source.

The government paid to build wind farms in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.  Wind technology is not new.  Those wind turbines were retired and not replaced.

Wind power already went away once.  Gee whiz marketing won't make the technology any more viable than it was 50 years ago.  The problem with wind and solar hasn't changed since the 1970s; how can the energy be stored?

Wind technology is not new. 

Who said it was?

Wind power already went away once.  

And it came back.   Been to Europe lately?

Wind power has obvious problems (aesthetics, mechanical maintenance, wildlife, etc.) so an emerging technology like nuclear fusion is certainly appealing.   And, as I noted, wind will eventually be replaced by a better technology and that will be determined by advances in technology and the market.

It seems 'we told you so' when it is not 'so' is the alleged conservative MO.  It seems to me that what it is, is, 'sticking it to the libs', as usual

Wind power has obvious problems (aesthetics, mechanical maintenance, wildlife, etc.)

In the etc. part should be "man's direct assault on the atmosphere".  This spring, around the end of April, a group of fellow workers and I traveled south down the center of the state and encountered a low cloud deck, that was moving east, and rain as we entered the east end of a large wind farm, you could only see from the hub down to the ground as the blades turned and then we turned west through the farm and as we went you could see more and more of the wind turbines and less and less rain until at the west end the rain stopped and you could see the entire turbine.  

A couple years ago while heading up I-75 in the morning (BTW I'm a passenger and not driving) we started up the south end of the Z Bridge and looking east you could see the large wind farm out in the thumb and the only place there was fog was in the thumb to the height of the hub of the turbines and they were rotating, which usually you don't have fog with the wind blowing especially with enough velocity to start the turbines rotating.

It seems to me that what it is, is, 'sticking it to the libs', as usual

The libs are doing a great job sticking it to themselves as of late.

And, I don't see any discussion of some of the "serious" issues with the "wind-energy" craze.  Ya know that the components of the turbines are not recyclable (as claimed).  Ya know that the turbines have more oil leaks than your '59 Chevy did.  Ya know that transportation of turbines and other base components is outrageously expensive.  Ya know that the turbines are far from being the environmental friendly source they are so touted to be (dead critters/birds/airplanes/etc..)

Absolutely no management planning in start-up - just like the EV vehicles - "HEY, LET'S DO IT" without choosing the most appropriate and feasible path of production and operation.  These business types seem to have forgotten that, before you can run, you have to learn how to crawl, then walk, then jog, then run.  Hell, NOBODY can run a 25K the day after they're born - it takes time and planning - something too many in the corporate world have forgetten.

something too many in the corporate world have forgetten.

Maybe they figure the government will give them a blank check if they can convince everyone that this is an emergency that needs solving right away

Provide proof of your allegations

The Truth doesn't have to be proven, it just is.

It takes specialized ships to haul and assemble wind turbines and service them in the ocean. Adding to the steep rise in costs is our old law, Jones Act requiring US made ships and crew.  The ships require 3-4 years to build and cost a lot to build, crew and maintain them.