Where is Wind Energy Today?
Wind and geothermal energy are the only competitive sustainable resources today, although a case can be made that wind power would not be able to produce electricity as profitably as coal or nuclear power facilities were it not for those tax breaks. Fortunately enough, the House Ways and Means Committee did not again hold the industry hostage until the eleventh hour when on January 22 it approved extension of the production tax credit for windpower through 2012. Geothermal and solar incentives, if the legislation passes, would now be good through 2013.
In any case, if you were able to bring into the analysis the dangers of global warming and terrorism, then, arguably, these renewable options would be "competitive." But solar photovoltaics still have a cost problem and ethanol from biomass appears to be losing some support. Plug-in cars remain in the future with respect to meeting the test of clean energy, for most of the charging capabilities will need to be supplied by coal-powered generators for a long time to come. Remember that non-hydro renewables supply way less than one percent the electricity currently generated in our country.
This is not to say, however, that we should ignore these other solar options. The fact of the matter is that it will take time and nurturing (in the form of tax benefits and R&D) to get there, something we should have initiated after the 1979 second energy crisis. Energy from our winds, though, is at the threshold of being commercial.
I covered the story of wind energy in Chapter 2 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth (Everything you want to know about this subject can be found in the July 2008 publication of the U.S. Department of Energy entitled 20% Wind Energy by 2030. I was particularly impressed with the group putting together this publication and the list of reviewers. I first found myself in this field (details covered in the previously mentioned chapter) more than 35 years ago as chairman of the Wind Energy Division of the American Solar Energy Society. Many of the people from those days remained with the field and took part in this study.
In short, the report indicates that 20% of the national electrical supply could be met with wind energy by 2030. No technological breakthroughs are needed and 46 states would significantly contribute to the production. Half a million jobs would be created and annual property tax revenues should increase by $1.5 billion. A sum of $43 billion will need to be invested, but, and this is interesting, fuel expenditures would be reduced by $155 billion.
As 40% of total national carbon dioxide emissions come from electrical plants, the effect of wind power would effectively result in zero growth of this greenhouse gas from electricity generation by 2030. Further, water consumption from electrical facilities would be reduced by 17%.
There will need to be some understanding from environmentalists, for these wind energy conversion systems (WECS) can affect the life of a bird flying into the rotor, and resort hotels have been known to protest siting a wind farm nearby for fear of noise, visual pollution and image (the connection to the region being too windy). We faced these problems when we first introduced these systems a quarter century ago. One 3.2 MW device from Boeing, which had blades from tip to tip longer than a football field, built in the hills above Turtle Bay on Oahu, was particularly monumental. After a spell when only up to 250 KW WECS were being marketed, the latest devices are now re-entering this multi-megawatt range, for a 7 MW wind turbine was last year installed in Germany. This one takes 5 seconds to make a complete turn, so the bird count should not be a concern. Apparently, the problems we faced with materials and gearing have also been solved.
Hawaii, appropriately enough, has one-upped the nation, with a 40% by 2030 announced goal for renewable electricity. David Murdock himself has indicated an intent to spend $750 million to produce 400 megawatts of wind energy from the island of Lanai. There is a problem with who will be paying for the $1 billion or so undersea cable, but the resource is there and the need will come to a crushing reality within the decade, just about the time when everything should be in place.
Mind you, this comprehensive national effort for wind energy was initiated by the Bush Administration, so one can dream about 40%, too, or higher, from the Obama White House. Then, again, July of 2008 was when oil hit $147/barrel, and if current Department of Energy projections that crude will remain below $60/barrel for the next few years turn out to be true, then even the 20% by 2030 goal could well be a pipedream. Even T. Boone Pickens, with all his fanfare, essentially dropped out of the competition, for now.
The reality, though, is that the timing is perfect for President Obama and the Congress to actually, pass legislation for a $1/gallon gasoline tax and, perhaps, too, a one cent/pound carbon dioxide tax, for the consumer will hardly see the increase today. For example, the national price of gasoline hit $4/gallon in July and is now below $2/gallon, meaning that a $1 gallon tax only brings this cost up to $3/gallon, when double that amount is currently already being paid in Europe. Two cents/pound carbon dioxide tax would almost double coal fired electricity from 4 to 8 cents/kWh, making next generation solar thermal facilities competitive. My most recent HuffPo on Do It Now provides details.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pat, it sounds like you're a Pickens Plan man!
Well, I joined Pickens when he first announced his plans. However, as oil headed towards $50/barrel, T. Boone largely abandoned his wind farm efforts, so I left his crusade. Now that oil might be headed below $40/barrel, and, according the the U.S. Department of Energy, will remain below $60/barrel for a couple of years, I don't see his ambitious plan for wind energy being activated for a long time, if ever, for he is already 80 years old. But Pickens' decision merely reflects the reality of low oil prices, for most of the major renewable energy projects across the nation are being delayed. Plus, if you happen to be a financier, especially when the economic collapse has been partly caused by risky investments, you won't be providing anything for an enterprise that could lose money. My next HuffPo will cheer the unanticipated bonanza to consumers for low oil prices, but lament the downfall of all the sustainable resource programs to be cancelled. We are missing an opportunity.
Mr. Takahashi,
In regards a wind farms, bats & birds, there are other styles of turbines. Appears to me that some of the columnar wind turbines wouldn’t have that effect. Is that correct?
I posted this Jan 27, 2009 article; 'Obama Stuck Between Kennedy, Patrick On Wind Turbines'
Conceptual idea & video from MagLev
http://magturbine.com/
http://www.maglevturbine.com
Inhabitat – this page has link numerous prior to comments section. Micro Wind Turbines & HELIX Wind Turbines look quite interesting too.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/
article/video of Jay Leno here on HuffPo about his new roof-top wind turbine! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/jay-lenos-maglev-wind-tur_n_156192.html
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2007/11/china-in-big-mag-lev-wind-build.html
First of all, I encourage any new renewable technology to try to find market. Second, though, some wind rotors are more efficient than others. Did you realize that a one-bladed horizontal axis wind energy conversion device is the most efficient of all? That is, one blade, with the other side of the hub having a counterweight. Alas, this system has been shown to be unstable and difficult to start. Likewise, a vertical axis device like the darrieus wind turbine (resembles a mixer blade) is very efficient, but, apparently, also metastable. Remember those old farm windmills with twenty or so blades? Well, they are really inefficient. You might want to check into how efficient, thus, a magturbine is. Finally, I like the attitude, but about the worst thing you can do is install a windmill on your roof, primarily because we tend to live where the winds aren't. In the early days of this field, politicians insisted on placing wind power demonstrations in their home town, which generally was terrible site. Keep in mind that wind power increases with cube of the wind velocity.
Will you install a jib sail on the front of my car?
With a diameter of 413 ft, the worlds largest wind turbine will have a speed of 259 ft per second at the tip of the blades when turning at a rate of 5 seconds per rotation. At that speed with that mass, that is more than enough to kill a bird.
Yes, but the German project team indicated that the slower rotation speed of their device should kill fewer birds. A 125 ft blade takes only 3 seconds per rotation. Our projects in the past have been protested by the Audubon Society, so this problem is real.
Patrick,
Why not tax hydrocarbon fuels based on their expected carbon-dioxide emissions?
This would increase the cost of carbon dioxide emmisions across the board, equally. A fee of $100 per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions would result in an increase in gas prices of about $1 per gallon. This $100 per ton carbon-dioxide(370 per ton carbon) emission fee would result in an increase in electricity costs of 7 cents a kilowatt hour. This is actually a minor electricity cost increase in much of the US.
The carbontax.org web site has a good discussion of implementing a carbon/carbon-dioxide tax. The implementation details section of the site has a useful spreadsheet for examining the costs of carbon-dioxide emission based www.carbontax.org/issues/implementing-carbon-taxestaxes). From the spreadsheet it appears that $100 per tonne(metric) is 4.5 cents per pound of carbon-dioxide.
Regards,
Good idea. The problem, of course, is, how do you get our decision-makers to take action. With oil at $40/barrel and DC snowing today, the threat of global warming is not a priority matter. The Obama Administration will get through some tepid cap and trade legislation, show reasonable interest in Kyoto II, and claim victory. That is not sufficient, for we will lose the moment if a severe carbon tax is not instituted this year. I began writing articles for the Huffington Post because I thought the instant response factor might catalyze real action. This has not happened. I think I now need to look at Blogger, WordPress and all those other links below.
So what's happenin with the NIF?
Okay, I'll ask. What is the NIF?
the reality, actually, is that PV is more cost competitive than you say. since you believe the DOE, then why don't you believe their report that 100% of US electricity needs could easily be met on existing rooftops within urban load centers? oh, and at only 10% efficiency, which means the super-cheap thin film and/or the less-sunny regions are feasible.
remote energy production - especially erratic, inefficient and unreliable wind - is an environmental disaster and an economic boondoggle. all we need are point of use solutions ramped up. that means storage, smart grids, PV, microwind, geothermal heat exchange, passive solar, efficiency, etc.
the "wind farms" completely destroying the Whitewater area near Palm Springs, like all other wind projects, focus on their rated capacity, rather than their actual output. actual output there? 15% of rated capacity, occasionally spiking to 19% (erratically, of course, so backup power is still fully built). so that 400 MW you talk about? actually, really 60 MW. not so cheap now, eh? add in the costs and GHG emissions of new transmission? the ecosystem destruction? Game Over, Industrial Wind.
why do engineers hate ratepayers so much? why do they insist on focusing on Big Energy Monopolist solutions? the truth needs to be told. "Big Renewables" are extremely harmful to our economy and our ecology, and a better, cheaper, greener, democratic solution is ready to go. so let's get our AB 811 loans funded so ratepayers can be the solution, not just pay for the problem.
Yes, PV can supply all the electricity we need, but the cost today remains too high. The prevailing wisdom is that wind farm power can be produced for around 6 cents/kWh at a decent site. Residential PV is closer to 20 cents/kWh, and probably higher. Thus, as the average price of electricity in the country is around 10 cents/kWh, why would you want to pay a lot more? Well, if you live away from a grid, of course, or if that is your contribution to a greener planet.
The idea works on the island of Lanai with electricity costing up to 40 cents/kWh and in Germany where the government has mandated utilities to purchase residential PV for more than 50 cents/kWh. In a way this could be smart policy if you adhere to the valid argument made about life-cycle cost, especially if Global Warming significantly increases the cost of fossil fuels. As indicated above, though, if a somewhat severe 1 cent/pound carbon dioxide tax (equivalent to $73/ton carbon) is enacted, the price of coal electricity would only double from 4 cents/kWh to 8 cents/kWh, so PV power would remain non-competitive. Someday when PV technology improves (and the Nanosolar concept appears now to be overblown), there should be an important role for this solar option. But not today.
Whoops, meant to say 2 cents/pound carbon dioxide tax ($147/ton carbon tax) would almost double coal-fired electricity costs. Some have suggested a $200/ton carbon tax, would bring 4.2 cents/kWh to 9 cents/kWh.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
