Posted on 01/23/2010 7:15:38 AM PST by TonyfromOz
“The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind"
The September 1990 issue of “Scientific American” was titled “Energy for Planet Earth”. It addressed the various energy sources and strategies that could be pursued to meet future energy demands. In one article on wind energy, it was estimated that 4 million 500KW windmills could produce better than 90% of the electricity that is used by the United States. The article included a graphic which showed the percentage of electricity demand that could be produced by a particular state. Texas and North Dakota had the highest wind potential. Each state could produce 11% of the electricity demand of the United States! The graphic showed that South Dakota could deliver 7%.
The August 1995 issue of “Scientific American” was the 150th Anniversary issue of Scientific American. The editors attempted to forecast the scientific advances of the 21st Century as their predecessors who had published the 50th anniversary issue in 1895! In the chapter on energy in the 21st Century, it was stated that, “…some estimates suggest that the wind energy in North and South Dakota could provide 75% of the United States’ electricity.” This was a four-fold increase in electricity generating capacity predicted in the 1990 issue mentioned above! this increase in electrical generating capacity is a result of improvements in electrical generating technology. These technological improvements means that wind energy of the Plains States from North Dakota to Texas could produce from 300% to 400% of the electrical demand. What does that mean for Texas?
A recent Dallas Morning News article stated that Texas is the one state that is connected to the Eastern and Western Power grid. Were Texas to embark on a program to construct windmills and generate this electrical power, it would regain its pre-eminence as an energy exporting state. Wind energy would dwarf the oil patch because wind energy source is renewable and more important NON-POLLUTING. Instead of gas fired plants in Forney, fields of windmills could produce the same electricity with NO CO2 EMMISSIONS. In fact, if Texas were producing 40% of the electrical needs of the United States, all the coal fired plants, which produce over 30% of the CO2 emissions in the US, could be shut down. We could meet and exceed the Kyoto Accords CO2 emission targets while creating jobs, wealth, and profits!
Windmills are an elegant solution because they would produce more than electricity. Electrical utilities would pay farmers, ranchers and the state a royalty, (just like mineral royalties are currently paid for coal, gas and oil extraction), for the right to harvest the wind. Farmer and ranchers would have a second source of revenue to supplement their farming revenues and the state would have a continuing source of funds for the general revenue accounts. Excess electrical energy could be transmitted to electrolysis plants on the Gulf Coast. The electrolysis plants would use the electricity to convert the Gulf’s water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen would be piped to Amarillo; Lubbock, Midland/Odessa and other arid Texas cities where it would be used as feed stock for commercial grade fuel cells. The fuel cells, (similar to the ones on the Space Shuttle), would produce electricity for the local community. The waste by product of this process, a.k.a. PURE WATER! Would then be used for community consumption, farm irrigation of could be pumped into the ground to replenish the Edwards aquifer.
Manufacturing and constructing these hundreds of thousands of windmills would create thousands of jobs in Texas. Fact: the windmill blades on the current generation of windmills are as long as the wing on a Boeing 737 and are similar in aerodynamics. Whenever an order for F-16s is received at the Fort Worth plant we rejoice that jobs are “saved” Imagine if TU Electric were to order 100,000 windmill blade sets! The windmill towers and the electrical generator would also have to be manufactured which would result in more companies and jobs as would the need to survey and construct the sites for windmill installation. Were the United States to embark on this energy strategy, the import market for this technology would be “global”. Africa, India, China and South America would all be markets for these windmills. ¼% of all solar energy reaching the earth is contained in the wind at the earth’s surface. This amounts to 16 times the total of ALL energy produced and consumed by the plant. Texas could lead the way and benefit the most by adopting this energy strategy and then exporting it to the rest of the United States and the world.
I know, I know I am guilty of being a Dreamer! The US has lead the world in the "Dreamers" department and our economy and society benefits from the products and services they dreamed up!
The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines over the last few days.
Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines accounting for a quarter of all UK electricity demand over the next 10 years.
He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government's pledge on Friday to build nine major new wind "super farms" by 2020.
"If we had this 30 gigawatts of wind power, it wouldn't have contributed anything of any significance this winter," he said. "The current cold snap is a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it is getting worse."
Coal stations are currently used as back-up generation when there is a surge in demand for gas and the wind does not blow – which both tend to happen during cold weather.
However, increased dependence on wind farms will coincide with a European Union directive shutting down Britain's dirtiest coal and oil fired power stations.
The UK has committed to switching off these stations by 2015, leaving it uniquely vulnerable to gas shortages and the intermittency of wind farms.
I’m sure that Obama’s off shore wind farms are causing a lot of alarm among the coastal limousine liberals. I’m laughing my head off, thinking about all those wealthy liberals in Cape Cod and Nantucket who opposed drilling in the ANWR and off shore drilling anywhere because of the unsightly oil rigs, now facing wind farms.
Ten years ago, the Nantucket residents were bemoaning the damage that the cormorants were doing to their boats, now suddenly, they love the darn birds.
The construction cost and maintenance costs of wind power are larger than that of coal, nuclear, or gas-powered generation in terms of $/MW output. If wind and/or solar power were a major source of our power instead of coal, gas, and nuclear, our price/KWH would be double what it is now. Perhaps more.
Wind is not a reliable source - it is sometimes windy when demand is low, and it is sometimes still when demand is high. So, utilities would need the additional available capacity to generate enough to make up for the missing resource in order to meet energy demand at any given time. The typical wind farm’s real-world output is around 15-25% of it’s rated capacity due to the fact that the wind is not always adequate to generate full load. You’d need a lot of alternative sources to make up for that, regardless of the energy source.
Your writing claims that CO2 is a pollutant - it is NOT a pollutant. Meeting the confines of the Kyoto accords is not a desirable goal - it is an unnecessary restriction at best, based on the false claim of global warming/climate change. We don’t need to rebuild an existing asset, at twice the cost or more, to accomodate junk science.
There are a handful of places where wind power might be competitive with other resources. Anywhere else is a waste of money at this time unless there are other realistic factors involved (off-grid location, etc.).
You haven’t factored in the fuel cost! For wind generators it ZERO dollars for the life of the generator. When you consider the additional costs required of the Clean air Act and other government regualtions, stack cleaners, lead, mercury and other atmospheric pollutants a windmill is VERY COST EFFECTIVE!
We did lead the world for some time, but alas, we fell into the hands of the dreamers and now we are being led around by the nose.
When the first working factory to produce windmills is built, powered and all products shipped by windmills, I will join your parade.
Back in 1973 I proposed that restrictions on Aquaculture be relaxed to allow “Farmers” to raise Salmon.
All of the little creeks and small rivers that flow into the Pacific that have no (zero) Salmon runs could effectively although “unnaturally” become new Salmon Hatcheries, the Farmer would Harvest the returning Salmon. Hatch the Fry that would be returned to the Ocean and it would be 100% self sustaining.
Since it was “unnatural” I was roundly criticized. Making Money even back then was EVIL. (Native Americans REALLY did not like the idea, I’ll bet if we made a whole bunch of Mini-Reservations they could be brought on board though)
Tree Huggers can KMA (oughta be a Bounty on them)
Your Wind ideas are cool, but Tides and Waves are 100% predictable combine them with your Wind ideas along with Natural Gas (a use it or lose it resource) and De-Regulating the Entrepreneur Spirit and it will be such a super Win Win Win, (the same structures could be used and simply be multi-purposed), Hell cover the roofs of the damn things with Solar Collectors just to shut up the Tree Huggers.
I do not Kneel at the Alter of Man Made Global Warming (Quite the contrary) I just don’t like waste and Regulations are a huge WASTE.. they Cripple.. and are such a tremendous hindrance to the creation of wealth.
We are wasting Energy both Human and “Natural” with STUPID GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. The EPA is MY Enemy (then and now)
JMHO
TT
Oh yeah I forgot toss in a Nuclear Plant right next to each one of these places cause they really are the most efficient means of generating power.
(I can’t wait for Jimmy Carter to assume room temperature so our “Representatives” can finally grow the Cajones to move to undo his moronic restrictions for breeder / recycling reactors... the same ones that France uses)
“ones” = “kind”
Personally I would rather move all electrical generating systems off planet. Werner von Braun and Professor O'Neil from Princeton founded the National Space Society and proposed settling the moon and mining its resoruces to produce satellites to convert sunshine into electricity and beam it to Earth. Read O'Neil's book "The High Frontier."
I met Senator/Astronaut Harrison Schmitt who wrote a book, "Return to the Moon" where he suggest building a lunar colony, collect Helium 3 to fuel fusion generators on the moon and beam the energy to Earth. Yes they're Dreamers which can be made a reality if we get the Enviro Weenies outta the way!
Hey you guys.
Sorry I took so long to get back here. I post from Australia, and when I posted the original post, it was 1AM my time, so I went off to bed. Now it’s Sunday morning I came back to have a look here.
Some very interesting comments.
One however that does need addressing is the Scientific American article.
It’s fine to show diagrams etc indicating that many towers could supply all the US power needs. It’s another thing altogether to actually realise what you are saying.
4 million wind towers.
There are currently around 30,000 of them in the US.
This Government proposal calls for the construction of 70,000 offshore towers and to have it done by 2024, 14 years away.
That length of coast line is 960 miles. These towers have a blade sweep area tip to tip of 364 feet.
So, placing them along this 960 mile length means one huge tower every 400 feet for that whole 960 mile length, making 12,500 huge towers in that distance. So for the 70,000 towers you are now looking at 6 rows of those 12,500 towers.
As to the time, working 250 days a year during every daylight hour, remember this is offshore in the water, they will need to be constructed at the rate of one huge tower every 35 minutes..... for 14 years.
As to the Scientific American article. Great theory. You can stack these really tight at 170 per square mile at that tip to tip swept area. So to construct the 4 million in the article, that effectively covers nearly 20% of the total area of those 2 States, not just vacant area, but the whole area.
Also to construct those 4 million huge towers, even in the required 14 years, they will need to be constructed at a rate of one every 33 seconds.
People have the false belief that these wind towers deliver the rated 3MW of power all the time. They barely manage 20% efficiency rating (power delivered/maximum Nameplate Capacity) That average equates to 5 hours a day of its maximum power.
4 million towers looks great on paper with respect to the power that maximum rating can deliver, but it’s something that is just that. A dream.
This Government report calls for only 70,000.
One every 400 feet for 960 miles, and six rows deep.
I have no problem with the windwill... just make sure that there is a Natural Gas Well underneath it also a Wave and Tide generator and cover the damn thing with solar panels... hook this up to a Nuclear Plant on shore (all of the wind, wave, tide and solar accouterments trump the tree huggers and we get Natural Gas and Nuclear permits and all of the Energy that they provide)
Or we could just get Politicians out of the “Permission for Sale” business and just do it.
TT
I have no problem with the windmills... just make sure that there is a Natural Gas Well underneath it also a Wave and Tide generator and cover the damn thing with solar panels... hook this up to a Nuclear Plant on shore.
Great idea. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
First thing though!
Make it mandatory for politicians to chase up the facts from the people who know before they open their mouths and put their feet inside.
That article about the 4 million wind towers. It was for 500KW generator nacelles. Considering they are now up to 4MW, they now only have to construct 500 thousand of them in all reality. Because they are so huge, they will need to be spaced further apart than the quote I made for 170 per square mile. That means those towers will now cover ALL the land in those 2 States, not vacant land, all the land, in amongst the houses and the buildings, in the urban and rural areas.
At that same rate they now get more time to put them up too, because there’s a lot less of them.
What they need to do to achieve this 500 thousand towers is to construct a structure taller than The Statue of Liberty, mount the nacelle on top, fit the blades, hook it all up, and have it delivering power to the grids. They need to do this now at a rate of one of these structures every 4 minutes, for every daylight hour of every year.....for the next 14 years.
Easy peasy. Ask a politician.
Yes we can!!!!!
No we darn well cannot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.