Wind Power Is Now The Cheapest Energy In India (bloombergquint.com) 54
An anonymous reader shares a report: Wind power prices fell to its lowest and below the cheapest solar tariffs in the fourth round of auctions, putting more pressure on turbine makers as developers are expected to negotiate already-falling equipment prices. State-run Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. auctioned 500-megawatt of grid-connected projects at as low as Rs 2.43 (3.8 cents) a unit. That was quoted by Actis-backed Sprng Energy that bid for 197.5-megawatt capacity and KP Energy that won 30 MW. That's lower than the lowest solar power tariffs of Rs 2.44 a unit discovered in May and 8 percent lower than wind power prices discovered in earlier national auctions in October, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. A decline in auction tariffs will put the manufacturers under even more pressure to innovate and meet the price expectations of developers, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said. Falling tariffs may lead to discovery of even lower bids in the national wind auctions scheduled for January, it added. India aims to auction 28-gigawatt wind projects by March 2020 to take it closer to the total targeted capacity of 60 GW by 2022. That's part of the plan to install 175 GW renewable energy capacity by 2022.
Re:Do they have big necklaces? (Score:4, Informative)
"You know those necklaces they give you when you land there?"
That's Hawaii.
Aloha.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the salient point is that the people there are brown.
Re:175 GW for 1.3 billion people (Score:5, Informative)
Per-capita electricity use in India is 1,122 kWh/person/year. That's less than 100 per month. So...
> Roughly 30 kWh per month per person. That is practically nothing
It's 30% of everyone's usage. Which is "practically amazing".
Re: (Score:2)
Because dollars being speculated in the asset market are more real than dollars people use to by actual stuff... evidently.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile in the real world, oil and natural gas stocks are going through the roof.
Well, the world population is still growing and despite a modest counter-effect from greener technology and greener living more and more people can afford a higher and more energy-intensive lifestyle. For example, the US has 797 cars per 1000 people, China got 154 and India 42. With economic growth there will likely be a market for billions of cars more and only a fraction of those will be EVs. Imagine a billion Indians who want AC when it's 40C outside. There'll be plenty demand for cheap energy for the fo
Sorry, West Virginia [Re:Trump will shut this down (Score:3, Informative)
We will be selling them authentic West Virginia coal once the regulations are lifted.
Not sure if this is intended as humor or straight.
In any case, no, India's coal imports come from Australia and Indonesia, which are much closer.
Price per tonne of coal is so low that the import cost is mostly shipping, and so you buy it from the closest source-- nobody would ship coal from West Virginia to India; that's halfway around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Define 'Cheapest' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Define 'Cheapest' (Score:5, Informative)
"Cheapest to produce (overall costs to install and maintain equipment / power actually produced) is different than 'It costs less to the consumer because it is highly subsidized by the government'."
No. In Germany, the latest off-shore Wind turbines declined any subsidies, they no longer need them.
"Offshore Wind Farms Offer Subsidy-Free Power for First Time"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how scale will do things like that.
Also funny how a fuel-less source of energy is cheaper than the others.
Almost like getting something for nothing is a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It will come from slowing down the air that passes by the blades, while its not a quantum butterfly effect, there will still be some sort of effect caused from pulling energy out of the air.
One turbine won't cause anything measurable, 1000 probably not as well. 1,000,000 you might see something. The effect might be something like a mountain, and cause a down draft convection effect on the downwind side
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The days will get longer due to the increased drag on the planet. This will tie in with the secret plans of the 1% to surreptitiously increase the work day. This will be marketed as an increase in leisure time to the SJWs to get them on side.
Re: (Score:2)
1. it's a plan by big-caffeine to further entrench themselves as a survival necessity.
2. SJW's by definition do not work, outside of the 5 hour sinecure/work study their department has them do
(if they actually had jobs, they might focus their energies there instead.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another thermal current in a massive system, this one from the outback to the urban canyons. Large cities already generate their own micro-climates due to concentrated heat outflux.
The effect on the other end will be a hundred times more dilute, because the collection side is vast and diffuse (and cities have an additional heat term from fossil fuels, as well as their exhaust).
Anyone involved
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly getting something for nothing. The energy to turn those blades have to come from somewhere. It will come from slowing down the air that passes by the blades, while its not a quantum butterfly effect, there will still be some sort of effect caused from pulling energy out of the air. One turbine won't cause anything measurable, 1000 probably not as well. 1,000,000 you might see something. The effect might be something like a mountain, and cause a down draft convection effect on the downwind side of a turbine farm. Who knows maybe we can use large wind farms for both energy and weather control.
There are a lot of people throwing out FUD about wind power (the poor birds!), seeking to discredit it for whatever reason. You may have noticed the absence of attacks backed by any sort of factual numerical reasoning asserting that wind power is harmful because it pulls too much energy out of atmospheric circulation system. The reason for this is that the contention is an absurd one when you look at the situation at all.
Wind farms slightly increase drag on the flow of air (wind) which occurs with land or w
Re: (Score:3)
1,000,000 you might see something.
This has been debunked over and over again. The amount of kinetic energy available in wind could power the entire planet several times over on exclusively wind before the coefficient of drag ends up having an effect on the air currents enough to cause a shift in climate.
You think a wind farm is bad, you should see what trees do! They are devastating to that kinetic energy.
Re: (Score:1)
Reducing your dependency on other countries to bring you oil at whatever price they set is a valuable thing in an of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
'It costs less to the consumer because it is highly subsidized by the government'.
In the US unsubsidized wind and solar are now the cheaper than natural gas [seekingalpha.com] and its natural gas, not green energy, that killed all the coal plants. [reason.com] Also solar+storage is cheaper than nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about wind, coal or oil? Because I thought you were making a point but I think that it is to stop subsiding coal and oil.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's why it's cheapest, because it's unreliable"
Hardly, that's the nuclear ones. They don't work when there's an 'incident', when there's a checkup, or in Winter when the river is frozen or in summer when the water is low or when the river is already too hot or ...
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly, that's the nuclear ones. They don't work when there's an 'incident', when there's a checkup, or in Winter when the river is frozen or in summer when the water is low or when the river is already too hot or ...
What the hell are you even talking about? Nuclear generally has a higher up-time then any other power source. Bruce nuclear didn't even SCRAM when the NE blackout happened, they kept the reactors at 60% until they could reconnect to the grid, which was around 4hrs. That was faster then any other power producer in the NE area of north america. Faster then hydro-electric(Niagara Falls took 8hrs), coal and NG plants were as long as 12hrs and many auto-shutdown requiring a full restart.
Re: (Score:2)
But the plant was disconnected while running at 60% ... ...
coal and NG plants were as long as 12hrs and many auto-shutdown requiring a full restart.
And that is exactly why the nuclear plant was kept at 60% but disconnected
So: what exactly is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
And that is exactly why the nuclear plant was kept at 60% but disconnected ...
No, actually it wasn't. But if you're that interested, why don't you go read up on the 2003 blackout and you'll figure out where you went wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
if you had provided links :)
Anyway, if the nuclear plant had shut down, it would have been offline for days if not weeks, just like a coal plant.
If you are interested you could read up about the so called boron or neutron poisoning ... but I guess you are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really:
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... [iaea.org]
Am I reading this right? (Score:2)
If I'm reading this correct, it reads as if the issue is the utility is paying less for wind power, which may or may not mean the cost of generation is lowest, but not necessarily...
Wouldn't take much (Score:1)
the miserly calculus of marginal cost (Score:2)
Attractive margins come and go. Get your ideal wind-farm location while supplies last!
By the way, the correct measure is delivered wattage, after subtracting out transmission loss. How much is your transmission loss? Well, that depends on the flow patterns of the existing grid. Ideally you would add the new generation source, subtract out the displaced generation sources, then calculate the marginal delivery loss in the system as a whole, to isolate the marginal term associated with one project.
Unfortun
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the correct measure is delivered wattage, after subtracting out transmission loss. How much is your transmission loss? ... you could have googled that.
The transmission loss is the same as for: coal, nuclear, water, solar, biogas etc.
So why do you care? And in a typical grid it is 5% - 7% of the transported energy