THE Wind Power Thread pt 2 (merged)

[yesplease]

For wind to take four decades to reach the same capacity as coal...

I wonder how many decades would take for wind capacity to reach the same baseload energy as coal, without all the technofixes like smart grids, EV battery storage, etc.

That's an odd way to phrase the statement. All coal doesn't provide baseload energy. Some of it is baseload and some of it is load following. Overall the capacity factor of coal as of 2009 was ~64%. Recently the capacity factor for wind power is probably around 35%, so in terms of comparing net generation, we need about twice as much nameplate wind as we have of nameplate coal. We have ~300+GW of coal, so we would need ~600+ GW of wind (~400,000 1.5MW turbines) to see the same net generation from both sources. In terms of supplying (very roughly, since we don't know how much coal is baseload and how much is load following) baseload, interconnected wind farms can supply about half of their total generation as baseload w/ higher reliability than coal, so in that case we would need ~800,000 (I'm using the 2009 production figures for coal, so in order to replace it we need fewer turbines because coal generation has dropped) 1.5MW wind turbines. Like you mentioned, we could approach using ~400,000 wind turbines to replace coal, baseload or not, if we had a lot of energy storage or a smart grid, but those are still in their infancy. Wind power and transmission are both relatively mature, so they could work for now if we wanted to replace coal with wind.

[VMarcHart]

I'm totally splitting hairs, and I know you're making educated guesses, but...

I think wind NCF is below 35%, closer to 30% than to 35%. I'm working on a project in Wisconsin that we'll be lucky if the real, produced NCF breaks 30%.

Then there's population growth, energy demand growth, and in all reality, there will be changes in life-styles, smart grids, EVs* storage, etc, to balance the energy lust, but something will have to power them. In terms of supplying baseload --the "~800,000 1.5MW wind turbines"--, let's just round that number to 1,000,000 1.5MW turbines. That's 1,500 GWs. Again, lots of splitting hairs.

The conservative spacing rule of thumb still is 100 acres per turbine. That's 100,000,000 acres. Kansas has 52,657,279 acres. Two Kansas to displace coal wind wind. Let's say I'm off by 50% in terms of installed capacity and turbine nameplate, so we just need one Kansas to displace coal. Then there's the other white elephant, nucular , and the smaller, more domesticated animal, NG.

Nobody's saying it impossible, and the alternative is even worse, but it's not something that will happen overnight.

*EV storage: I wonder how many EVs would be required to act as a functional and reliable form of readily available power.

[TheDude]

The issue of what to do when wind begins to displace all those sulfates emitted from coal burning is a wild card as well. Theoretically this could defang a good deal of climate sensitivity when the cooling effect of the sulfates is removed.

Hang on, Dude, are you saying we can't live without the sulfates, CO2 and the other toxics?

Sulfate aerosols act as negative forcings on temps, counteracting GHGs to some extent. Otherwise global temp anomalies would be even higher than they are. Definitely a mixed blessing, of course.

[yesplease]

I'm totally splitting hairs, and I know you're making educated guesses, but...

I think wind NCF is below 35%, closer to 30% than to 35%. I'm working on a project in Wisconsin that we'll be lucky if the real, produced NCF breaks 30%.

It could be. The farms referenced in the Stanford paper I linked earlier had pretty high capacity factors, around 40% IIRC. The only way to figure it in practice is to go project by project, kind of a pain, or just use the EIA's numbers once new additions are a relatively small part of the total installed capacity. As of 2008, wind had a capacity factor of ~25%, but that includes all the new generation, especially the stuff added in the fourth quarter, that gets counted as capacity but only generates for a fraction, sometimes a small fraction, or the year. In that case, ~15+% of wind in 2008 wasn't counted because it had no time to generate and the rest was still ham-stringed being put in whenever it was during the first three quarters.

Then there's population growth, energy demand growth, and in all reality, there will be changes in life-styles, smart grids, EVs* storage, etc, to balance the energy lust, but something will have to power them. In terms of supplying baseload --the "~800,000 1.5MW wind turbines"--, let's just round that number to 1,000,000 1.5MW turbines. That's 1,500 GWs. Again, lots of splitting hairs.

Energy demand growth isn't too hard to deal with, and cheaper than any new sources to a certain extent. Kaliforniastan has had per capita electricity flatline because they figured out it's cheaper to invest a couple cents/kWh in public awareness, efficiency regulations, and programs to reduce demand via rebates on more energy efficient products, than it is to pay for new generation/transmission. Given the concern over GHG emissions, we might see the U.S. per capita electricity consumption flatline too. Population is expected to reach ~400 million in 40 years, increasing total electricity use by ~33% even if per capita remains flat. If you're really including change in lifestyle, smart grids, and EVs (with whatever other storage), then we won't need 800,00 turbines. It'll be closer to 400,000, or 500,000 if you wanna round up.

The conservative spacing rule of thumb still is 100 acres per turbine. That's 100,000,000 acres. Kansas has 52,657,279 acres. Two Kansas to displace coal wind wind. Let's say I'm off by 50% in terms of installed capacity and turbine nameplate, so we just need one Kansas to displace coal. Then there's the other white elephant, nucular , and the smaller, more domesticated animal, NG.

Are you counting all the space between the turbines? AFAIK a turbine only takes up a half an acre. The rest (spacing between turbines) can still be used (Nothing, farming, other stuff), even if it isn't. It's not like paved surfaces, where the total area would be ranked ~25th as a state, and that's all covered in something. Even if you count the space between turbines as used by a turbine, Kansas is about 50 million acres, while the area devoted to farmland in the country is about 2,250 million acres. I'm pretty sure we can figure out where to put some turbines in some of those 2,000+ million acres. Who knows, the economics for offshore may even be favorable by the time we get to ~20% wind. Nuclear is probably going to maintain it's share of generation because it's not as costly as coal, and nat gas is very much load following, so I imagine it can be replaced by more than just wind, although coal is still first on the chopping block. Keep in mind that if we replaced coal w/ interconnected baseload wind, the total net generation from wind would be almost all of what we consume right now from Nukes, NG, coal, hydro, and so on combined, because I assumed all of what's generated by coal to be baseload, obviously not true given the capacity factor of all coal, and in order to get all of what coal makes (~half of total generation) as baseload we would need to make twice as much from wind.

Nobody's saying it impossible, and the alternative is even worse, but it's not something that will happen overnight.

Very few good things happen overnight. If you're using that as a factor, most of what you've restricted yourself to is natural disasters. Like everything else, it'll take time, just like oil depletion and a lot of other things will take time.

*EV storage: I wonder how many EVs would be required to act as a functional and reliable form of readily available power.

That's even harder to figure out than how much coal baseload we actually have. It depends on the EV pack chemistry, connection points, charging/discharging window, kWh of storage, generation profile of the generators, and so on. A robust A123 pack that can be charged/discharged many times w/ little capacity loss and is grid connected at home and at work could be as good as ~5-10+ LG packs that are only connected at night.

[VMarcHart]

Are you counting all the space between the turbines? AFAIK a turbine only takes up a half an acre. The rest (spacing between turbines) can still be used (Nothing, farming, other stuff), even if it isn't. It's not like paved surfaces, where the total area would be ranked ~25th as a state, and that's all covered in something. Even if you count the space between turbines as used by a turbine, Kansas is about 50 million acres, while the area devoted to farmland in the country is about 2,250 million acres. I'm pretty sure we can figure out where to put some turbines in some of those 2,000+ million acres.

Yes, the space between turbines. Actually, with the crane pad, roads, transmission, substation, O&M building, etc, in average, each turbine occupies just shy of an acre.

But it's the sheer amount of the infrastructure, which IMO would take 2 Kansas to displace coal with wind, that is frightening. Once a turbine goes in, very little is built or planted nearby in order to maintain the NCF. Of course, the ironic upside is that very little is built nearby.

[yesplease]

2 Kansas' wouldn't just replace coal, it would also generate enough to displace most nuclear, natural gas, and hydro. We would have ~1.5 times current generation. I can't say land use is much of an issue considering how much we already need for just coal. Dedicating .04% of our land to generate what we do now doesn't seem too bad, and if people really dislike it, then they can shell out extra for offshore. Smaller homes and cars, say half the size of what they are currently, would probably reduce land use by a couple orders of magnitude more than that much wind could increase it assuming it was all onshore.

[VMarcHart]

That doesn't jive with the math we did above.

[yesplease]

Which part?

[JJ]

OK I'm late to the party, went out to New Mexico this week and saw my first wind farm, so googled it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

probably thousands of towers out by Big Spring, texas, then saw a bunch more on I-10.

[eXpat]

Wind farms don't work in the cold: Why it's no use waiting for turbines to keep us warm as the snow returns

Britain’s wind farms almost ground to a halt during the coldest spells in December, it has emerged.

As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.

During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.

The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.

December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.

There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.

Over the next decade, another 10,000 turbines will go up to meet Europe’s climate change targets. By 2020, the Government says 30 per cent of all Britain’s electricity will be generated by wind.

But at best, turbines work at just 30 to 40 per cent of their capacity. And in cold winter snaps, often caused by vast, slow-moving high-pressure systems over Northern Europe, winds drop to almost nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345233/Its-use-waiting-turbines-warm-snow-returns.html#ixzz1AYz8Qu2t

[Frank]

...so doesn't it makes sense to take advantage of the wind when it *does* blow and save the fossil fuels for situations just like this?

We need to leave as much fossil fuel in the ground as we can. Switching to renewables as quickly as possible makes a lot of sense.

[eXpat]

Wind Power Industry Experiences Slower Growth

NEW YORK—Despite heightened demand for renewable energy, growth of the U.S. wind energy industry has lost some wind behind its sails in 2010.

The wind power industry built 5,115 megawatts of additional wind power capacity last year—the lowest new power output since 2006—according to a report by the American Wind and Energy Association (AWEA) this week.

New installations slowed in 2010, AWEA data shows, with many project developers holding off on spending additional cash as they await future federal legislation on renewable energy. Last year’s new installations were barely half of 2009’s new output.

"Wind power is a great deal right now in many areas of the country," said Denise Bode, CEO of AWEA in a statement. "However, our industry continues to endure a boom-bust cycle because of the lack of long-term, predictable federal policies, in contrast to the permanent entitlements that fossil fuels have enjoyed for 90 years or more.”

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49961/

[MichaelWallace]

Looks to me like wind is a bust. I'm now thinking it will never get above niche use. Nuclear is the only currently existing technology that gives any hope for a post-fossil fuels civilization.

[Revi]

We have a guy here in Maine who is working on offshore wind, but with a difference. The wind towers will be on moorings and they can be within 20 miles of cities where the electricity is needed. The wind is way more reliable out there as well. I think it will be a viable technology within 10 years. Don't count wind out yet.

http://www.maineahead.com/podium-habib-dagher/