I agree with 99% of what I read here, and liked what I heard from Mr. Rosen's reading of JG's post. I'd like to engage him a bit on the economics of wind power. I currently work in Wind Power and am convinced it works, economically.

However, that "convinced" is far too similar to the way my liberal friends are convinced our globe is warming due to man-made CO2; I really haven't done the numbers myself. So, JG, can we talk? {You suggest how} - nb

I'll confess that I winced a bit at the inclusion of photovoltaic power. I think we are due for some "Moore's Law" style advances in that field. Both innovations in nanotech and increased availability of Silicon may bring that up to speed sooner than we think.

The discussion, however, is about economic feasibility and I think nb and I will both have to admit that our pet technologies still require help to compete. "Uncle Eric" is right to point out that subsidies provide a shaky foundation for innovation. When PV or wind can displace carbon combustion at the right price, we won't need to argue, it will just happen.

Wind is an exciting place to be now, nb. My worry with that industry is environmental restrictions and latency to build transmission lines.

Could be JK, I've always looked down on solar because it's power density is so low and cost so high. Currently running $4/Watt (installed) even in CO with the tremendous kick-backs we all pay for, it's almost silly compared to wind ($1/watt) even when compared to it's lack of need of new transmission lines.

Then again, I could be wrong and this project could prove me wrong (7.5 c/kWhr is half what current solar is capable of).
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/business/fi-thinsolar5

Then again, this could just be an analyst in search of some quick publicity.

Most of my information comes from blogs and academic sources that Professor Reynolds links to. And I confess they tend to be wildly optimistic.

I guess my suggestion is that no current solution is economically viable (else subsidies would not be required). Uncle Eric and Brother JG are right about that. When I look five or ten years out, I can imagine nanotechnology's improving PV power to be competitive.

Taking your $4/W figure, if PV efficiency could double every two years, we're down to .50/W in 2015. (Installation, packaging and delivery would have to keep pace -- that may not be possible). Then we have a very attractive solution for microgeneration.

I suspect that the components of wind power are pretty close to full potential. Propellers and turbines and generators and mechanical parts have been improved over the years for other purposes and it is hard to imagine a technological breakthrough.

I hate to impugn you line of work (you can tell me tape backup is dead) and quite a bit of smart money says you're right. I'm very concerned with environmental push-back both for the units and transmission lines. A bit of silicon on the roof seems an easier sell.

Nano, I haven't done the numbers either, as you say, but I do know that when wind power first appeared as a marketable commodity there was a premium for the absolution of telling your friends and neighbors that the grid power that reached YOUR house came from the WIND! Perhaps this was a case of limited supply and unsated demand but I don't think so. Reason being that one of the largest purchasers of such "renewable" energy was municipal governments (City of Boulder comes immediately to mind.)

Here's the other big clue that wind power doesn't pull its own weight compared to conventional (i.e. proven safe, reliable and economical) energy: It's called 'The Stimulus Bill.' Billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize wind (and solar and every other fellow traveller). This is the very "gambling with other people's money" that Uncle Eric wrote about.

And yet, it's still not enough. They're (Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the 'green' lobby) still dead set on "imposing the true costs" of conventional energy useage through one or more form of taxation. In my humble (honest!) opinion this is nothing more than an anti-prosperity play to retard free enterprise at every opportunity. There is no great desire for "renewable" energy to replace conventional sources. The real goal is just to reduce energy use altogether. Witness the actions to oppose transmission line construction and even wind farm construction, or to dismantle the most successful renewable energy sources ever: hydroelectric.

I recall when wind generators were first developed, in the '80s I believe, that enviros opposed them as "eyesores" and "bird blenders." Now we've seen enough of them in use in northern climes to learn about giant shards of ice flying off of their blades at great threat to life and property nearby. And all, presumably, in the name of what? DAWG horse shit.

Finally, one thing that must be kept in mind regarding capital cost per watt of generating capacity is that for windmills and solar cells, when the 'wind don't blow and the sun don't shine' that cost goes to infinity.