Wind Energy

[Hobo1]

Considering the high cost, the issue of intermittent power generation, large areas required for a wind farm, and other problems with wind energy discussed in this thread, this seems like a diversion from getting on with alternative energy solutions that much greater promise. The only way wind energy can be considered "green energy" is because it costs so much money for such little return.

 

[Hobo1]

What's the matter with Obama? Doesn't he read this forum?

Yesterday he gave is $8+ billion "economic stimulus package" speech from a company in Ohio that makes wind turbines. He plans on spending lots of government money promoting clean energies -emphasizing wind energy

I was watching MSNBC and immediately afterwords an energy consultant said wind energy would never replace more than 10% of the energy needs of the US. He said right now wind energy supplied 1.5% of the nation's energy needs. He also said that wind energy would ever be economical until petroleum gets much more expensive.

Since when did we start to think that having the government stimulate business is a good idea?

 

[Pidgey]

What's the matter with Obama? Doesn't he read this forum?

Yesterday he gave is $8+ billion "economic stimulus package" speech from a company in Ohio that makes wind turbines. He plans on spending lots of government money promoting clean energies -emphasizing wind energy

I was watching MSNBC and immediately afterwords an energy consultant said wind energy would never replace more than 10% of the energy needs of the US. He said right now wind energy supplied 1.5% of the nation's energy needs. He also said that wind energy would ever be economical until petroleum gets much more expensive.

Since when did we start to think that having the government stimulate business is a good idea?

1.5%? Wind? "Nation's Energy Needs"? No, that would be the nation's electrical energy needs. For calendar year 2007, wind energy comprised 0.3% of the US total primary energy consumption. Gotta' watch your terms here... source

 

[Hobo1]

1.5%? Wind? "Nation's Energy Needs"? No, that would be the nation's electrical energy needs. For calendar year 2007, wind energy comprised 0.3% of the US total primary energy consumption. Gotta' watch your terms here... source

Great source... my mistake. You do find some great sources, I am impressed.

Here is the interview, which is worth watching

The name of the interview is "Is Wind Worth It?" if the link doesn't work.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm in energy and have intuitively had several misgivings about mating wind generators to the grid. I've gone looking for more information and have discovered that my fears are justified. Summaries may be found here:

I don't think it is possible for a centralized authority to know if the best thing is for all of us to commit to wind energy or to continue with oil or to change later or next year or whatever.

But if you have a thousand thousand entrepeneurs trying to make a profit by doing what will work then those who invest in wind and succeed will bring that change about, those who invest in oil and succeed with bring that about. In the end whatever works will continue and whatever fails will fail with no need for a gov beuracrat to lift a pen.

 

[Pidgey]

Ahh... but elected officials and appointees oft bring their own agendas to the table! Methinks "conflict of interest" runs pretty rampant...

 

[Pidgey]

In theory, though, an energy source like wind could allow an economic block the means to produce manufactured products more cheaply than a different region using an expensive fuel. This only works if the TAR (Time-Adjusted Return) is reasonable, though.

If we take the total wind power generated for the calendar year 2007 and divide that by the total nameplate rating capacity, then we realized a capacity factor in the US of about 21.8%. If we take the total rated nameplate capacity installed up to the end of 2007, we can figure out our dollar investment so far (within order of magnitude): about $9.5 billion. If we take that $9.5 billion and divide it by the total actual wind power generated in the US (32.14 TWh), then we get almost 29.5 cents per KWh, so it has the potential to pay for itself in fairly short order since the average cost per kilowatt-hour in the US is about $0.11 (source).

The real devil in the details gets into the control of the grid and the compensation for wind fluctuations. As long as installation is done in areas where we've got high quality wind, it's not a bad supplement to the system. To me, it's the perception that a lot of folks get that we can do the majority of our generation this way and that just won't fly as a practical matter. But nobody ever accused most people or politicians of being practical...

 

[Hobo1]

In theory, though, an energy source like wind could allow an economic block the means to produce manufactured products more cheaply than a different region using an expensive fuel. This only works if the TAR (Time-Adjusted Return) is reasonable, though.

If we take the total wind power generated for the calendar year 2007 and divide that by the total nameplate rating capacity, then we realized a capacity factor in the US of about 21.8%. If we take the total rated nameplate capacity installed up to the end of 2007, we can figure out our dollar investment so far (within order of magnitude): about $9.5 billion. If we take that $9.5 billion and divide it by the total actual wind power generated in the US (32.14 TWh), then we get almost 29.5 cents per KWh, so it has the potential to pay for itself in fairly short order since the average cost per kilowatt-hour in the US is about $0.11 (source).

The real devil in the details gets into the control of the grid and the compensation for wind fluctuations. As long as installation is done in areas where we've got high quality wind, it's not a bad supplement to the system. To me, it's the perception that a lot of folks get that we can do the majority of our generation this way and that just won't fly as a practical matter. But nobody ever accused most people or politicians of being practical...

You lost me with that logic. If the cost of producing wind energy is $0.29 per KWH, how can that compete with $0.11 per KWH we now pay? Plus, I remind you that the $0.11 per KWH is "delivered to the meter". In other words, that includes the cost of distribution, maintenance of the grid, operation costs, etc. The actual cost of electrical production is much lower. Are you comparing the capital costs of wind generating equipment with the current unit cost of generation, maintenance, distribution and depreciation of electricity in the US?

 

[Dr.Who]

You lost me with that logic. If the cost of producing wind energy is $0.29 per KWH, how can that compete with $0.11 per KWH we now pay? Plus, I remind you that the $0.11 per KWH is "delivered to the meter". In other words, that includes the cost of distribution, maintenance of the grid, operation costs, etc. The actual cost of electrical production is much lower. Are you comparing the capital costs of wind generating equipment with the current unit cost of generation, maintenance, distribution and depreciation of electricity in the US?

I hope that he is comparing the cost at the meter of the one to the cost at the meter of the other.

He would be right that wind power has the potential to become more competitive. Right now there are very few wind farms and the technology is not mass produced and is even kind of new. It could get cheaper in the future. Unless the key factor is the location of the farm. Then if all the current farms are set up on the best land future farms will be set up on land that is not so good.

We have touched on just a couple of the issues in a very complex system of questions. I REALLY hope no one thinks that our government officials have the ability to wade through all this and make a decision that is good for all of America, because they don't.

 

[Pidgey]

The 29.5 cents per kilowatt-hour is the price you'd need to charge to pay off the installation in one year, so at the going actual price you're theoretically square in about three years--even more if you factor in that the 11 cents per kilowatt-hour is only partially fuel costs. That's going on some average numbers for wind turbine installations. This one, on the other hand:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/23/wind.turbines/

...looks like it'd take a lot longer to pay the installation costs given the nasty design conditions (extra long moment arm; base underwater and seawater at that; capable of withstanding hurricane-force winds).

The thing that you can't do with wind turbines as a significant portion of your total generation is rely on them. Therefore, you have to also maintain an operating fleet of other generation equipment to power the grid when wind is a problem. What you gain with the wind turbines is less fuel consumed when the wind's blowing.

I suppose in retrospect for budgetary considerations, it'd be best just to compare installation costs to current fuel costs. In one vision of the future, carbon fuels (solids, liquids AND gases) become more expensive through depletion and we simply must have alternatives. Period. End of story. It's either that or back to caves and campfires.