> But the article makes no statement to prove this assertion. It does not even make sense to me. I guess the author meant that for firms that have high energy needs...
They do make a statement, I think you might have missed this paragraph:
> That puts wind in an incredibly competitive position. The report uses an estimate of future natural gas prices that show an extremely gradual rise of about $10/MW-hr out to 2050. But natural gas—on its own, without considering the cost of a plant to burn it for electricity—is already over $20/MW-hr. That means wind sited in the center of the US is already cheaper than fueling a natural gas plant, and wind sited elsewhere is roughly equal.
The implication of this claim is that in operation it’d be cheaper to build both a gas plant and a wind farm, to reduce the amount of gas that you burn, rather than just building a gas plant. If that’s correct your discussion of intermittency wouldn’t be relevant.
> Wind is even cheaper at the moment because of a tax credit given to renewable energy generation. But that credit is in the process of fading out, leading to long term uncertainty in a power market where demand is generally stable or dropping.
Or from the government report itself:
> The magnitude of growth beyond the current PTC cycle remains uncertain, however, given declining tax support, expectations for low natural gas prices, and modest electricity demand growth.
So what is it? Is wind power cheaper or was that a tax subsidy effect?
It’s subsidized even as it’s still cheaper without the current subsidy. The uncertainty in natural gas prices means that this exact situation is unlikely to hold up over time. Reduced demand for natural gas resulting in lower prices, up to a point.
They do make a statement, I think you might have missed this paragraph:
> That puts wind in an incredibly competitive position. The report uses an estimate of future natural gas prices that show an extremely gradual rise of about $10/MW-hr out to 2050. But natural gas—on its own, without considering the cost of a plant to burn it for electricity—is already over $20/MW-hr. That means wind sited in the center of the US is already cheaper than fueling a natural gas plant, and wind sited elsewhere is roughly equal.
The implication of this claim is that in operation it’d be cheaper to build both a gas plant and a wind farm, to reduce the amount of gas that you burn, rather than just building a gas plant. If that’s correct your discussion of intermittency wouldn’t be relevant.