THE Wind Power Thread pt 2 (merged)

[ReverseEngineer]

Do they think no one reads past the first utopian nonsense in the beginning of their articles?

Yes.

They are correct statisticaly speaking also. Why do you think people here rail at me for being so long winded? Sometimes I don't even get to the point of a post before the 3rd or 4th paragraph. This is far past the capacity of the average reader to digest. If you can't digest the whole thing into a Headline and the first 2 sentence paragraph, its not absorbed by the readers.

Fortunately, this board is populated by more than a few people who can digest an 8-10 paragraph essay. I wouldn't still be writing here if it wasn't. Needless to say however, this board is NOT populated by your typical mainstream IDIOT from any country from Nepal to Bolivia and everywhere in between. If you want to write for the population at large, you have to do it in a Comic Strip. I'm waiting on FlapJax to finish illustrating the third Doomstead Diner.

Reverse Engineer

[Schmuto]

Do they think no one reads past the first utopian nonsense in the beginning of their articles?

Yes.

They are correct statisticaly speaking also. Why do you think people here rail at me for being so long winded? Sometimes I don't even get to the point of a post before the 3rd or 4th paragraph. This is far past the capacity of the average reader to digest. If you can't digest the whole thing into a Headline and the first 2 sentence paragraph, its not absorbed by the readers.

Fortunately, this board is populated by more than a few people who can digest an 8-10 paragraph essay. . .

I'm sorry, did you say something?

[rangerone314]

Wind power, lol!

Might as well advocate growing beans so people can eat them and then harvest the methane they emit...

[aahala2]

Have we hit 1% wind yet? If so, only 10 more orders of magnitude to go.

The most recent figures from the EIA.doe.gov website
show US windpower -- for the first time -- broke the
1% of total US electrical production for calendar year 2008. About 1.25%

10 orders of magnitude more than that greatly exceeds
all known human consumption to date for all fossil fuels,
nuclear power, hydro electric power, all other electrical
production and perhaps all energy consumption since
the beginning of the species.

[Minvaren]

Have we hit 1% wind yet? If so, only 10 more orders of magnitude to go.

The most recent figures from the EIA.doe.gov website
show US windpower -- for the first time -- broke the
1% of total US electrical production for calendar year 2008. About 1.25%

10 orders of magnitude more than that greatly exceeds
all known human consumption to date for all fossil fuels,
nuclear power, hydro electric power, all other electrical
production and perhaps all energy consumption since
the beginning of the species.

Wow, I was way off on that. My bad.

[dohboi]

No one mentions that in a very few years we will have an ice free Arctic cap. This will wreak all sorts of havoc in ways hard to predict. But one likely outcome will be a large drop in the amount of wind in the northern hemisphere, since there will be a greatly reduced differential between the cold at the pole and the warmth at lower latitudes.

We are likely to undergo a huge buildout of wind capacity only to see the wind falter and fail more and more often.

But we will always madly scramble to the next quick fix rather than stopping and wondering what we need all that energy for, exactly. Somehow the Iliad, Odyssey, Mahabharata and many other literary monuments, not to mention the seven wonders of the ancient world and many other architectural marvels were all created in a world that used only a fraction of the world's resources and energy.

But no, we will not pause to ask any deeper questions. We will persist in our frenzy to grasp onto the next thing which will soon fail us and leave the world a shabbier place.

[vtsnowedin]

No one mentions that in a very few years we will have an ice free Arctic cap. This will wreak all sorts of havoc in ways hard to predict. But one likely outcome will be a large drop in the amount of wind in the northern hemisphere, since there will be a greatly reduced differential between the cold at the pole and the warmth at lower latitudes.

We are likely to undergo a huge buildout of wind capacity only to see the wind falter and fail more and more often.

But we will always madly scramble to the next quick fix rather than stopping and wondering what we need all that energy for, exactly. Somehow the Iliad, Odyssey, Mahabharata and many other literary monuments, not to mention the seven wonders of the ancient world and many other architectural marvels were all created in a world that used only a fraction of the world's resources and energy.

But no, we will not pause to ask any deeper questions. We will persist in our frenzy to grasp onto the next thing which will soon fail us and leave the world a shabbier place.

Even pessimistic scientists think the arctic ocean will have ice on it in the winter months for the rest of the century. When they talk of an ice free arctic ocean they mean in the summer which there is only six weeks long or so. Even then there will always be a differential between the temperatures in the tropics and the arctic regions and the winds are not likely to diminish.
As to the seven wonders of the ancient world, they were built when the earths human population was measured in millions not billions so the first step to returning to these earth friendly times is to get rid of six billion people or so. And it may not help as even the ancients managed to damage their environment. The loss of the cedars of Lebanon being the first recorded deforestation in history as example and the stripping of topsoil off the fields of Troy and Carthage being another.

[Tanada]

Even pessimistic scientists think the arctic ocean will have ice on it in the winter months for the rest of the century. When they talk of an ice free arctic ocean they mean in the summer which there is only six weeks long or so. Even then there will always be a differential between the temperatures in the tropics and the arctic regions and the winds are not likely to diminish.
As to the seven wonders of the ancient world, they were built when the earths human population was measured in millions not billions so the first step to returning to these earth friendly times is to get rid of six billion people or so. And it may not help as even the ancients managed to damage their environment. The loss of the cedars of Lebanon being the first recorded deforestation in history as example and the stripping of topsoil off the fields of Troy and Carthage being another.

Lets not forget Ephesus in Asia Minor, it was considered one of the most beautiful ports of the Med when Paul wrote to the church there in his Epistle to the Ephesians. Then the Romans stripped the mountains above it of trees to keep building ever more ships and erosion began silting up the river. Every time there was a major storm in the mountains the silt would flood down into the harbor. Now the ancient city is literally MILES from the sea because the delta grew out that far and left the old city cut off from its traditional trade status because a brine marsh formed where the old harbor was before the deforrestation.

[yesplease]

It's the new math. Not only does 20% not assure us
of 100%, but ". . . could produce 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to meet a quarter of the national demand" isn't 20%, 25% or 100%, it's 200%.

Either the author or the speaker knows nothing about
the topic, or they have created their own arithmetic.

The 100% (see the wind resource map from the dept of minerals and whatever else summary) refers to utilizing the high class 50M wind resources off the east coast, west coast, great lakes, and the stuff from Texas to North Dakota. Since what's off the East coast could supposedly account for 20% of all electricity consumption, the wind resources in the middle of America could probably account for another 50%, and those off the west coast/great lakes another 20%, not that we would need 90% of America's electricity from wind, since we already get ~30% from nukes/hydro, and solar PV seems to be getting pretty cheap. In CA, with state and federal incentives, the levelized cost seems to be around 3-4c/kWh, which is pretty good compared to the state average of ~10-12c/kWh. Most home roofs have enough surface area for ~10-15 kWh/day, which could provide about 10% of current electricity consumption, and enough for all home energy consumption, including an EV or two, with a little downsizing.

[vtsnowedin]

It's the new math. Not only does 20% not assure us
of 100%, but ". . . could produce 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to meet a quarter of the national demand" isn't 20%, 25% or 100%, it's 200%.

Either the author or the speaker knows nothing about
the topic, or they have created their own arithmetic.

The 100% (see the wind resource map from the dept of minerals and whatever else summary) refers to utilizing the high class 50M wind resources off the east coast, west coast, great lakes, and the stuff from Texas to North Dakota. Since what's off the East coast could supposedly account for 20% of all electricity consumption, the wind resources in the middle of America could probably account for another 50%, and those off the west coast/great lakes another 20%, not that we would need 90% of America's electricity from wind, since we already get ~30% from nukes/hydro, and solar PV seems to be getting pretty cheap. In CA, with state and federal incentives, the levelized cost seems to be around 3-4c/kWh, which is pretty good compared to the state average of ~10-12c/kWh. Most home roofs have enough surface area for ~10-15 kWh/day, which could provide about 10% of current electricity consumption, and enough for all home energy consumption, including an EV or two, with a little downsizing.

Subsidizing solar panels doesn't make the power any cheaper. It just changes who pays the total cost and when they pay it plus interest. Right now PV panels are the most expensive way to make power and they need a major breakthrough on the manufacturing cost of the panels to even get close. Large wind turbines on the other hand are getting very competitive with costs falling between wholesale power rates and the higher retail rates that are out there. Estimates for a project proposed here were for costs of about 11 cents/kwh vs. a retail rate of 17cents/kwh.
Don't forget that the 30% of our electricity that is coming from nuclear power plants is all coming from thirty year old plants that need to be decommissioned within the next ten years and replaced with something that doesn't emit GG. They need to stop talking and start building.

[yesplease]

Subsidizing solar panels doesn't make the power any cheaper.

In CA peaker plants cost ~16-23c/kWh, so since a $2.50/W subsidy is ~10c/kWh over 20 years and ~5-6c/kWh over 40 years, we're looking at levelized energy that's ~5-20c/kWh less that what's paid currently. Course, this depends on how much energy we're looking at, so the rebates drop as installed capacity increases due to less savings on the producer's side.

Keep in mind this does not include the reduction in costs for homeowners who install the panels, and who will now have more money to spend on the local economy instead of imported natural gas/expensive peaker plants. It doesn't include the shot in the arm the local economy gets via more solar panel manufacturing/sales/install. It doesn't include the reduction in GHG emissions. It doesn't include the reduction in transmission capacity needed. And so on...

It just changes who pays the total cost and when they pay it plus interest.

It changes who pays what cost, lowers the overall cost, and has many secondary benefits for all parties concerned.

Right now PV panels are the most expensive way to make power and they need a major breakthrough on the manufacturing cost of the panels to even get close.

PV panels would be the most expensive way to make power if we were looking at baseload power, but that's not what PV panels make, and that ain't what we're looking at. Their output matches up pretty well with peak power requirements, less a few hours in the winter. I don't think we'll see more than 5-10% of production from PV, but considering the cost of alternatives and dropping cost of PV (individual cells are $1/Watt on eh4y) I think we will see continued expansion. In fact, with the drop in LFP battery prices from China and the $1/Watt panels, off-grid levelized costs are getting pretty close to 10c/kWh for a DIY'er.

Large wind turbines on the other hand are getting very competitive with costs falling between wholesale power rates and the higher retail rates that are out there. Estimates for a project proposed here were for costs of about 11 cents/kwh vs. a retail rate of 17cents/kwh.

Regional project costs depend on what the competition is doing, for instance the Tehachapi wind farm may only have a 25-30% capacity factor, compared to somewhere in the mid-west at 40+%, but since it tends to produce the most energy during peak load in the late afternoon, that's o.k. since the owners get paid more for their electricity.
For baseload, assuming a good transmission network, I've seen ~5.5c/kWh (2004 price so adjust for inflation) including the needed transmission up to 20% of the grid, and like you've seen first hand, wind is competitive in certain markets. Course, unless it can make peak power for ~5-10c/kWh, I don't think it would compare with solar PV in that situation, but we're talking about different power for different apps.

Don't forget that the 30% of our electricity that is coming from nuclear power plants is all coming from thirty year old plants that need to be decommissioned within the next ten years and replaced with something that doesn't emit GG. They need to stop talking and start building.

The license expiration date, and whether or not the license can get extended or the plant can be rebuilt, depends on the individual plant in question. I imagine that someone somewhere made a chart of when production capacity phases out, but a quick survey seems to indicate that most licenses expire in the 2020s with the rest expiring in the 2010s/2030s. Policy is favorable to new plants, and considering their size I'm betting that any retired plants will be offset by fewer larger new plants, at least for the nex couple decades.

[Graeme]

Wind vs Petroleum at First Offshore Energy Hearing

Off-shore wind supporters and proponents of off-shore oil and gas development battled for power Monday at the first of four regional public meetings held by the Interior Department on a comprehensive energy strategy for the Outer Continental Shelf.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar hosted the meeting at the Atlantic City Convention Center to gather information and public comment. Findings from the public meetings will shape a decision by the Obama administration on whether to grant five-year leases on the outer continental shelf to energy companies.

"Offshore wind is New Jersey's largest source of renewable energy," Kris Ohleth of BlueWater Wind, one of the state's three wind developers, told the hearing. "Harnessing that energy will bring clean power to the state, as well as jobs and economic development. We applaud the state's efforts to pursue offshore wind energy development, making New Jersey a leader in the new green economy."

Current estimates of "undiscovered" oil resources range from 1.1 to 7.6 billion barrels and "undiscovered" gas resources range from 14.3 to 66.5 trillion cubic feet.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-07-091.asp

[Graeme]

Breezy Talk: Interior Secretary Salazar’s Offshore Wind Dreams

But one thing is the theoretical wind resource and another is the amount of power the country can realistically develop. Secretary Salazar focused on the wind-power potential of the mid-Atlantic, which is about 463 gigawatts. Realistically, he said, 40% of that could be developed—or about 185 gigawatts. That’s still almost double the power potential of the U.S. nuclear fleet.

But wind power, even offshore wind power, isn’t the same as coal or nuclear. Offshore wind farms in Europe are lucky to generate 40% of their listed capacity. So that limits that mid-Atlantic resource to about 74 gigawatts. And that doesn’t even consider the technical and economic hurdles that still dog offshore wind power and make it less competitive than its onshore cousin.

Vestas, the world’s leading maker of wind turbines, knows a thing or two about wind power. Chief executive Ditlev Engel is obviously bullish on U.S. wind power—he figures the U.S. could easily pull a Denmark and get 50% of its electricity from the wind. But not even Mr. Engel, who makes the massive turbines for offshore wind farms, thinks that path makes much sense for the U.S.

“Why would the U.S. do offshore wind? It has plenty of resources on land; offshore wind is for countries without that kind of resource,” he said in February.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/07/breezy-talk-interior-secretary-salazars-offshore-wind-dreams/

[VMarcHart]

Wind developer here. It will never happen in our lifetime. If this, if that, then we could this, and we could that, etc, blah-blah-blah, do your laundry during the windy hours, by an EV, vote for me, Earth hour, etc, etc.

I just started construction of a tiny 100-MW wind farm, and I'm thinking of adding it as the 13th labor of Hercules. A thousand gigawatts!?!? Please!!!

[dohboi]

vt, sorry I didn't specify summer-time ice-free Arctic. Keep in mind that the most pessimistic models that the IPCC put out just two years ago showed an intact ice cap for at least decades. The most pessimistic models seem to regularly not be pessimistic enough, mostly because of the difficult of modeling interactions of multiple feedbacks.

But even an Arctic ocean free of ice for a few weeks or months is going to change the climate patterns in the No Hemisphere, probably in profound and unpredictable ways.

Keep in mind also that the highest use of electricity is in the late summer, just when any such calming effect is likely to kick in.

One more thing to keep in mind: in the act of melting, the ice cap significantly cools the water around it. Once the ice cap is gone, not only will it not reflect light, it's melting will no longer act too cool the surrounding water. This is likely to lead to (relative) super heating. We already saw areas last summer where water temps were 7+ degrees C (as I recall) above long-term averages.

You tend to be quite cagey in your answers, so let me ask straight out: Do you view the impending total melt of the ice cap, an event that hasn't happened since long before human civilization first started to develop, as on even of little consequence?

[vtsnowedin]

vt, sorry I didn't specify summer-time ice-free Arctic. Keep in mind that the most pessimistic models that the IPCC put out just two years ago showed an intact ice cap for at least decades. The most pessimistic models seem to regularly not be pessimistic enough, mostly because of the difficult of modeling interactions of multiple feedbacks.

But even an Arctic ocean free of ice for a few weeks or months is going to change the climate patterns in the No Hemisphere, probably in profound and unpredictable ways.

Keep in mind also that the highest use of electricity is in the late summer, just when any such calming effect is likely to kick in.

One more thing to keep in mind: in the act of melting, the ice cap significantly cools the water around it. Once the ice cap is gone, not only will it not reflect light, it's melting will no longer act too cool the surrounding water. This is likely to lead to (relative) super heating. We already saw areas last summer where water temps were 7+ degrees C (as I recall) above long-term averages.

You tend to be quite cagey in your answers, so let me ask straight out: Do you view the impending total melt of the ice cap, an event that hasn't happened since long before human civilization first started to develop, as on even of little consequence?

Considering that the poles spend some 163 days in the dark each year and that the elevation of the Greenland ice cap and the interior of Antarctica are as high as they are I don't see the total melt of the ice caps as more then a remote possibility.

From the CIA data site. Antarctica

Terrain: about 98% thick continental ice sheet and 2% barren rock, with average elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 meters; mountain ranges up to nearly 5,000 meters; ice-free coastal areas include parts of southern Victoria Land, Wilkes Land, the Antarctic Peninsula area, and parts of Ross Island on McMurdo Sound; glaciers form ice shelves along about half of the coastline, and floating ice shelves constitute 11% of the area of the continent
Elevation extremes: lowest point: Bentley Subglacial Trench -2,555 m
highest point: Vinson Massif 4,897 m
note: the lowest known land point in Antarctica is hidden in the Bentley Subglacial Trench; at its surface is the deepest ice yet discovered and the world's lowest elevation not under seawater

.
But that said even the melting around the edges and the reduction in summer ice cover on the arctic ocean that is being predicted and observed is more then enough to have adverse impacts on the environment and the human population.
But I think the more immediate problem is the worlds population and its uncontrolled growth. I expect that to come to a head and be resolved in a very unpleasant way which will make peak oil and global warming moot points sometime in the next twenty years or so.

[dohboi]

"the worlds population and its uncontrolled growth. I expect that to come to a head and be resolved in a very unpleasant way which will make peak oil and global warming moot points sometime in the next twenty years or so."

Well, we can certainly agree that these are fundamental problems, and really they drive everything else--no over-pop and uncontrolled economic growth, no GW, species extincion....

I also agree that total ice loss year round seems a rather remote possibility in this century but it has happened before that the Arctic was not only ice free but downright tropical. How is this possible? The wonderful GW and insulative properties of water vapor.

[yesplease]

Wind developer here. It will never happen in our lifetime. If this, if that, then we could this, and we could that, etc, blah-blah-blah, do your laundry during the windy hours, by an EV, vote for me, Earth hour, etc, etc.

I just started construction of a tiny 100-MW wind farm, and I'm thinking of adding it as the 13th labor of Hercules. A thousand gigawatts!?!? Please!!!

I doubt we'll ever see 100% wind since it'd be impractical, but I can see 20-40+% wind in our lifetime. Right now wind is growing at half a percent of grid output per year, and it could probably scale up to a percent plus in a half decade or so, barring of course another administration screwing with the PTC.

P.S. Good luck putting up that 100-MW wind farm by hand, alone, with a cold, after walking to work ten miles in the snow, Hercules!

[vtsnowedin]

"the worlds population and its uncontrolled growth. I expect that to come to a head and be resolved in a very unpleasant way which will make peak oil and global warming moot points sometime in the next twenty years or so."

Well, we can certainly agree that these are fundamental problems, and really they drive everything else--no over-pop and uncontrolled economic growth, no GW, species extincion....

I also agree that total ice loss year round seems a rather remote possibility in this century but it has happened before that the Arctic was not only ice free but downright tropical. How is this possible? The wonderful GW and insulative properties of water vapor.

I'm not sure of the plate tectonics timeline vs climate time line but I'm under the impression that Antarctica was north of where it is now when its climate was tropical. Was not most or all of the coal beds put down before the Americas broke off from Garwonda or whatever they call it? With things close to their present position I think ice ages and interglacials has been the norm.

[Vogelzang]

Peak wind won't come until at least 5 billion years from now.