| GE Has Sold $12 B of Wind Turbines that they Don't Have |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Tuesday, 15 April 2008 | ||
|
Wind turbines are not a simple thing to construct, and as technology (and subsidies) have advanced, wind power has suddenly become a very attractive option for a lot of utilities. This is, of course, fantastic for the environment. But much-increased demand combined with no simple way to produce more has resulted in a big lot of deep pockets waiting long waits for their turbines. Looks like GE is going to have to start holding back on taking orders as the waiting list grows. It's apparently a lower margin business than GE is used to, but that doesn't mean they're getting out of it any time soon. GE's wind turbine business has grown 40% in the last year, this quarter, they delivered 569 wind turbines to buyers, mostly in Europe. So far, wind power is the only renewable energy source that can (in certain areas) actually be cheaper than fossil fuels. So let's keep hoping GE and their competitors, who have also been having trouble keeping up with demand, can ramp up production soon. Via CNet
Comments
(10)
Nuclear
written by pyewacket , April 15, 2008
Nuclear power can also be cheaper than fossil fuels. It should be considered a renewable energy source for all intensive purposes.
Nuclear is renewable?
written by SolarDave , April 15, 2008
Uranium is needed to manufacture nuclear power. Isn't it mined? If so, how does it qualify for renewable?
...
written by EV , April 15, 2008
You can make more Uranium out of Thorium and other material in a Breeder Reactor. Then there is the recycling of existing fuel.
Nuclear costs
written by Dave Cowen , April 15, 2008
Nuclear fuel is not the simple solution that we like to tote. Once you factor in the multi-billion dollar costs of construction of each reactor the costs of the energy from it go up significantly. So much so that governments build reactors, not energy companies. So energy companies don't factor in the cost of construction to the cost of energy. But even ignoring this, what about the cost of keeping the fuel contained for 100,000 years. Yes, there is fuel recycling, but at some point something needs to be stored. We know that there are not permanent storage solutions. Concrete cracks from the radiation and the spent fuel must be resealed or it will leak. 100,000 years. Almost anything is cheaper than the ongoing maintenance of fuel storage for 100,000 years! And lastly, for some years now we have been mining less uranium than we have been using in reactors. At some point the extra fuel from the Russian nuclear missiles will be gone, and you will find that the price of uranium (which has already gone up dramatically over the past few years) will skyrocket.
Once the true costs of nuclear are factored in, it is hard to justify their existence at this time.
...
written by Bob Wallace , April 15, 2008
Interesting observation....
Private/non-governmental money is streaming into wind power. Nano Solar has presold its first year or two's product. Demand for PV solar has exceeded supply for a while to the extent that it has caused price increases. No one seems to be spending private money to build new nuclear. Makes one go Hummmmmmmmmmm..........
Others RE's can cheaper than fossil fuel
written by Tom Konrad , April 15, 2008
Althouh nuclear is NOT renewable (gag), there are other renewable energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels to produce, given available local resources.
1. Solar thermal for process heat, and some other applications, such as swimming pool heating. 2. Landfill gas. 3. Geothermal, given a good qaulity resource. 4. Cofiring woodchips in coal plants is typically comparable in price to burning coal, although finding available supply can be dificult. Most of these are below the radar, because they tend to be distributed and rely on free local supplies of feedstock, so their potential contributions to the energy mix (except solar thermal, which actually produced more (thermal equivalent) gigawatts than wind last year worldwide leads to their low profile. The low profile of solar thermal hot water uses stems from the fact that it's low tech and more prevalent in the 3rd world.
"intensive purposes?"
written by glenn , April 15, 2008
did you mean "intents and purposes"???
maybe its a mute pount.
"mute point?"
written by jrod , April 15, 2008
you mean moot point?
Unfair comparision
written by pyewacket , April 16, 2008
First, SolarDave, existing Uranium can be collected and recycled for longer than we will have a sun.
Second, Tom Konrad, it was never said to be renewable, just "considered". Just like it is considered you can read, but you can't. Lastly, Dave Cowen is right on many aspects, but what is the cost and maintenance of hundreds (thousands?) of wind turbines to do the job of one reactor? Nuclear power has a bad reputation and some issues, but it shouldn't be tabled because it is unappealing.
Where's the data
written by Where's the data , April 16, 2008
You say that GE is 'apparently having a hard time delivering the turbines they sell'. Can you site even one example?
In fact, GE is selling all of their capacity and delivering all of the turbines they have on time! They are selling turbines 2-3 years out because their is strong demand from their customers and that is the only way that their customers can lock in supply. | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
Adding to the financial difficulties of General Electric, whose stock dropped 15% last week on poorer-than-expected revenues, apparently they're having a heck of a time actually delivering the turbines they sell. The turbines aren't technically late, but as the waiting lists get longer and longer, wind projects might be postponed as folks wait to see who can deliver first.
Subscribe to this comment's feed