Feasibility of Wind Power

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
I was watching Report on Business Television and they had a couple of guests discussing the feasibiliy of wind energy. The two guests were an alternate energy analyst from Merril Lynch or something and the CEO of a division of TransAlta.

Trans Alta is among Canada's largest non-regulated power generation marketing companies with coal-fired, gas-fired, hydro and renewable generation assets in Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Australia.

The analyst said that wind is cheaper than all other major forms of power besides coal. He said that nuclear is currently cheaper, but if you consider the costs of new facilities, he said that wind is a viable option. He said wind is roughly 10-12cents a megawatt, and will be the cheapest and fastest to bring online when considering new output.

The CEO then started talking about the technical side, ie. birds flyinging into the blades, noise, etc. The most interesting thing he pointed out was he saw wind becoming 20-30% of the american and canadian electricity generation in the future. The analyst confirmed his numbers as accurate, and feasible.

I think this is great news if what they say is true, it's nice to see wind as an option through free market cost reductions rather than government subsidies or forcing regulation. I do understand some of the flaws of wind, but it was interesting to see these knowledgable experts endorsing the technology.

This does not seem to agree with those actually testing wind power around the world. At least when maintenance costs are considered.

As better technology and construction are developed wind will, hopefully, augment current systems. In Texas we have been using windpower in many areas for over a decade. It is not cheap, but it is worthwhile.

My Wife and I have discussed building another home in the "country" and having a windmill constructed to supplement our power needs. Given the current costs of windmills it may actually cost more than the home.

Besides normal maintenance, wind tends to damage towers over a period of time, one hurricane or tornado hitting a windmill will knock power out for more than a few hours or days.

Can you see those in California screaming "WHERE IS OUR POWER!? I need another colonic and need it now!." They killed the building of new power plants, and continued to do so, yet complain when rolling blackouts shut down their power. I both feel their pain and rejoice that the instigators reap their rewards.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Wind is a good source of SUPPLEMENTAL power. It would not be feasible to try and erect a huge farm of windmills to power a city, even if you had enough, what happens on a day with no wind? Even the windiest parts of the nation have calm days. But a few windmills are a nice little supplement to a small town or a remote farm or ranch that needs power.

TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 6,740 MW as of Jan 24, 2005
http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html
thats encouraging. I'm not sure how many typical US households 6,740 Mega Watts can power, but at least we know thats 6,740 MW that we DON'T have to make with Coal or Nuclear.

I think eventually Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal, and a little bit of Nuclear combined will be enough to power the United states. My guess is Solar and Nuclear will be the large providers, followed by Hydro, with Wind and Tidal helping out in certain regions of the country.

EDIT:

AWEA believes that by 2020, with consistent policy support, wind can provide at least 6% of U.S. electricity, or about the same amount of electricity that hydropower provides today.
A little less than I thought, and I also though our current Hydro was more than 6%, but I wonder what the estimated % of solar powered will be by 2020.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuclear Power
Operating Costs:
1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour
versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas.

Capital Costs:
$1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity
versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants.
Wind Power Company
Operating Costs:
(the costs of operating and maintaining the wind farm) of $0.01 per kWh

Capital Costs:
$1,500,000 per MW for wind vs. $2,100,000 per MW for nuclear with wind taking 4 years to make, nuclear taking 10 years.
Time to build is an important consideration as 6 years more of capital investment is a lot more costly than starting a plant up in 4 years and starting to profit immediately off the plant.

So, if wind is cheaper from a initial capital cost perspective and is almost half the cost to operate, and can be built faster, could we be dealing with a competitor finally?



I know that doing something now is more important than doing it right but don't jump to conclusions.

First check out http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2000/08/09.html
then realize that their country which has heavy funding from the Government is only generating 10-15% of their energy needs. Plus, they have constant and steady winds and I don't believe they have tornados, hurricanes, or earthquakes. In California mudslides and fires have to be added.

Thus, they have the ideal situation.

In the U.S. you will have to fight liberal groups whenever a windmill goes up. It seems that winmills kill birds. Thus, there will likely be bird "deterrants" added to public windmills which will have to be monitored. Then the lawsuits will hit when birds are killed.

Consider the NE coast where windmills were about to go up and I believe it was the Kennedy's that killed the project because they did not like the looks.

So, when considering the initial costs you must also consider the costs of the obstructionists. I know, I know... the conservatves are the obstructionists... right? Wrong. We only say that if it is economically feasible why pay a rich guy money so they can make more money. Totally opposite of the liberal elites who want to take the property from the poor and give it to the rich, give tax incentives to the rich, pay the rich.....


Here is some information on what is needed for a windmill:
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/Catalogpages2/windpower2.htm
Note the steady non-turbulent requirements. The wind becomes turbulent after hitting the windmill so even windmills can't be placed close together.



FInally, check out this site.
http://www.akf.dk/eng/wind.htm
Those trying to keep their budget will play with numbers to make their case sound stronger than it really is. You know, fake but accurate.

Focusing on pure production costs our investigations show that today electricity produced by wind power is more expensive than electricity produced on central power plants. The production costs of the most efficient windmills on the present market (600 kW) are DKK 0.32 per kWh if they are located on average sites. This figure includes back-up costs of DKK 0.04 per kWh. Production costs of a conventional power plant are DKK 0.24-0.25 per kWh. We expect that wind power also in the next 4-5 years will be more expensive than conventional electricity production. Depending on the price and the capacity credit of future windmills we assess that the gap of production costs between wind power and coal power will be DKK 0-0.08 per kWh. Compared to natural gas power the gap of production costs will be DKK 0.02-0.10 per kWh.

And this is in an ideal country! Of course, we were told that by the end of 2000 the cost of producing a Kilo watt of power would be down to $0.0001. We are still waiting!

So, by all means support windmill research. Just don't listen to snake oil salesmen with an agenda. At least without doing your own research.

New designs are allowing them to withstand harsher winds than they initially could withstand. In the beginning a million dollar windmill had to be rebuilt every year because of wind damage. (I can hear some politican now. EUREKA! Just make a law making wind illegal!)

 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Many studies show that generating wind power causes environmental & climate problems. Another simulation from a study suggested that generating 10% of the world's power from wind would cause global climate problems.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Many studies show that generating wind power causes environmental & climate problems. Another simulation from a study suggested that generating 10% of the world's power from wind would cause global climate problems.

got link?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Many studies show that generating wind power causes environmental & climate problems. Another simulation from a study suggested that generating 10% of the world's power from wind would cause global climate problems.

I find that very hard to believe, I don't see how that is even possible. Unless the windmills are actually affecting winds by a noticable amount, I don't see how that would happen.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
link

I actually have a family member who attempted to install a windfarm involving companies from the US, India, and Japan. Unfortunately, it never went through.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link

I actually have a family member who attempted to install a windfarm involving companies from the US, India, and Japan. Unfortunately, it never went through.

not that surprising really, making electricity is all about tranforming one type of energy into another type we can use. With wind power we are transfering energy from the weather system towards electricity. It all depends on how much we make from wind power, this applies to every type of energy gatherning. Just depends on how much we can take without impacting the enviroment. Wind power will probably never be a major source of energy for us but it will be a part of our sources and definetly an important one, expecialy in remote areas.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
The ?but? is the fact that wind farms would alter the climate, the ?yes? is the paper's preliminary estimation that if wind power produced one-10th of today's energy, its climate-altering effects would be only one-fifth that of the carbon dioxide it would replace
So, its still better for the worlds climate than fossil fuels are, by a long shot.

And thats assuming 10% of worlds energy. The link I posted above estimates wind power will max out at 6% of worlds energy.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link

I actually have a family member who attempted to install a windfarm involving companies from the US, India, and Japan. Unfortunately, it never went through.

That link quotes "scientists" that talk the same as the social scientists that talk about global warming. We think, therefore it must be, even though we don't know how.


Besides, their contention was based around huge pockets of windmills. That is neiter feasible nor practical.

So, pardon me, I have a can of freon to spray into the air.

<for the humor challenged, don't read the previous sentence.>

 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link

I actually have a family member who attempted to install a windfarm involving companies from the US, India, and Japan. Unfortunately, it never went through.

That link quotes "scientists" that talk the same as the social scientists that talk about global warming. We think, therefore it must be, even though we don't know how.

Besides, their contention was based around huge pockets of windmills. That is neiter feasible nor practical.

So, pardon me, I have a can of freon to spray into the air.

<for the humor challenged, don't read the previous sentence.>

Ummm... did you read the article? They're saying that things are uncertain.

The article even states that windfarms increase local temperatures by 2 degrees. Also, from other papers I've read on paper, simulations of actual windfarms increase cloud formation, damage soil, etc.

BTW, I'm not against wind power.
 

NeenerNeener

Senior member
Jun 8, 2005
414
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
You really didn't have to bring the Kerrys and Kennedys into this, if the power is economically feasible, why would you shoot it down?

Yes I do.

Both of the eminent environmental luminaries prevented the construction of windmills near their vacations home. Would have ruined their views.

So, until we get even the most liberal enviro whackos on board, I don't expect anyone else to embrace it.


Can you back up your allegations involving Kennedy or Kerry or is this just something Rush Limbaugh said?
 

NeenerNeener

Senior member
Jun 8, 2005
414
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link

I actually have a family member who attempted to install a windfarm involving companies from the US, India, and Japan. Unfortunately, it never went through.

Even if this is true...

"The ?but? is the fact that wind farms would alter the climate, the ?yes? is the paper's preliminary estimation that if wind power produced one-10th of today's energy, its climate-altering effects would be only one-fifth that of the carbon dioxide it would replace."

BTW, was the study sponsored by a coal or oil company? ;)
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Seriously, it is very inefficient and it take a lot of room. Not to mention, it requires specific environmental characterists to even work moderately well. To use it as a primary power souce would basically mean that we would abandon the beaches as they are the only suitable locations.

Try the midwest... the on some days, the wind can knock you on your ass if you aren't careful. I can't recall a still day in years.