Wind Energy Gets A Lift In New Report

Government Report Says Turbines Could Be On Par With Nuclear As Energy Source By 2030

(AP)  Two decades from now Americans could get as much electricity from windmills as from nuclear power plants, according to a government report that lays out a possible plan for wind energy growth.

The report, a collaboration between the Energy Department research labs and industry, concludes wind energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030, about the same share now produced by nuclear reactors.

Such growth would pose a number of major challenges, but is achievable without the need of major new technological breakthroughs, said the report released Monday.

"The report indicates that we can do this nationally for less than half a cent per kilowatt hour if we have the vision," said Andrew Karsner, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for efficiency and renewable energy.

If achieved, it would be an astounding leap.

Wind energy today accounts for only about 1 percent of the nation's electricity, although the industry has been on a growth binge with a 45 percent jump in production last year.

To reach the 20 percent production level, wind turbines would have to produce 300,000 megawatts of power, compared to about 16,000 megawatts generated today. Such growth would envision more than 75,000 new wind turbines, many of them larger than those operating today. About 54,000 megawatts would be produced by turbines in offshore waters.

And it would require a major expansion of the electricity grid system to move power from high-wind areas to other parts of the country, the report said.

"The United States possesses abundant wind resources," said the report spearheaded by DOE's National Renewable Technology Laboratory in Golden, Colo., and a 20 percent share of electricity production "while ambitious, could be feasible."

But the report cautioned that its findings were not meant to predict that such growth would, in fact, be achieved, but only that it is technically possible. And it acknowledged "there are significant costs, challenges and impacts" associated with such rapid growth.

It would require improved turbine technology, "significant changes" and expansion of power line systems and a major expansion of markets for wind energy to accommodate an annual growth rate of 16,000 megawatts of electricity a year beginning in 2018, more than five times today's annual growth.

Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, said the report confirms that wind energy "is no longer a niche" in the power industry.

Dan Arvizu, director of the department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said that the 18-month study provides a "vision" of the kind of wind energy growth technically possible.

"First of all, it's doable, second of all it's desirable," said Arvizu at a news conference.

"It's time for America to change the way we think about wind power," said Bob Lukefahr of BP Alternative Energy North America. The oil company is a leading wind developer, said Lukefahr.

If wind energy's share of power production grows to 20 percent, natural gas consumption is expected to decline by 11 percent and coal consumption by 18 percent in 2030, said the report. As a result carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming would be reduced by 825 million metric tons a year.

"This is the equivalent of taking 140 million cars off the road," said Swisher.

[pthomas1172]

Why cant we put a wholesale / $100 dollar / 200watt wind turbine on every 10th telephone pole?

[andylance1]

A proposal that would have opened the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and some offshore waters to oil drilling and development was defeated in the U.S. Senate with a vote of 56 to 42.

Republican Senators attached an amendment which would have allowed coastal states to get a waiver to allow offshore drilling, but could not muster the necessary 60 votes.

As long as those idiots in Congress keep blocking off shore oil and gas exploration and drilling we will continue to have outrageous prices at the gas station.

I have no problem with wind and solar, but we also need to loosen up environmental regulation on oil refineries and build more nuke plants for energy.

[downsteamjim]

To mitchoncbs: Ducks and geese do a lot of migrating at night. The implication of no birds in ''remote'' countryside is weird.

[downsteamjim]

If wind = 20% then natural gas down 11% and coal down 18%. Does 20% = 29%?

[rmsdm4]

To rudy654! Who opposed the windfarms off the New England coast? Teddy K and the Dems. A FACT It was getting in the way of their view off Martha''s Vineyard.

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by rmsdm4 at 04:54 PM

How long ago was that lobotomy you had?

[rmsdm4]

I guess the only way to get a lib to support wind energy is to tax it. Then it won''t be commercially viable and birds can *** on something else.

[talkingham]

There is already a new type of linear wind generator being commercially used and tested that is virtually quiet compared to these towers that can easily sit atop a building or house or even low to the ground so these tower styles are already out of date. The new generators are much more efficient in virtually every aspect of generation and produce much less enviro noise.

These wind generators are usually over 200 feet tall, so the blinking lights at night bothering the birds, most of the species I have heard of are not nocturnal, except for owls.

You are correct about the noise, that would be the only draw back of it. About the birds, OH WELL! Most of the wind farms are in remote areas, which wouldn''t be an issue.

[jrube47]

I heard a lady on a call-in show say that she lives next door to a windmill facility in Oregon and the noise is about to drive her crazy. Also, there is the issue of protected birds which tend to inhabit the remote areas where these are erected. Not only do these aviary cuisinarts grind them up in the daytime, apparently the wind mills are marked with red blinking lights at night which also attract the birds. Despite her complaints, nothing has been done.

Not sure exactly, probably is, hope it isn''t wood. LOL then they would have a termite problem...lol

They went with that design because their previous house was destroyed by a tornado

Glad to help. I will talk to a friend of mine this evening and find out what they spent for theirs. But their house is a bit different, it is an underground home, or called a Earth-Sheltered Home

The environmental impact of geothermal energy depends on how it is being used.

Direct use and heating applications have almost no negative impact on the environment.

Geothermal power plants do not burn fuel to generate electricity, so their emission levels are very low. They release about 1 to 3 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions of a fossil fuel plant. Geothermal plants use scrubber systems to clean the air of hydrogen sulfide that is naturally found in the steam and hot water. Geothermal plants emit 97 percent less acid rain - causing sulfur compounds than are emitted by fossil fuel plants. After the steam and water from a geothermal reservoir have been used, they are injected back into the earth.

Geothermal features in national parks, such as geysers and fumaroles in Yellowstone National Park, are protected by law, to prevent the land from being disturbed.

While temperatures above ground change a lot from day to day and season to season, temperatures in the upper 10 feet of the Earth''s surface hold nearly constant between 50 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. For most areas, this means that soil temperatures are usually warmer than the air in winter and cooler than the air in summer. Geothermal heat pumps use the Earth''s constant temperatures to heat and cool buildings. They transfer heat from the ground (or water) into buildings in winter and reverse the process in the summer.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), geothermal heat pumps are the most energy-efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective systems for temperature control. Although, most homes still use traditional furnaces and air conditioners, geothermal heat pumps are becoming more popular. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy along with the EPA have partnered with industry to promote the use of geothermal heat pumps.

There are several houses in this town that have gone geothermal and the process I think is simple. It deaws its warmth from underground. Not to be disrescpetful, but here is a link that might help. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html

electric heating dragonwagon5

[sjc_1]

I would much rather see wind than nuclear. With a good national power grid, wind turbines and pumped hydro, we can have renewable energy 24/7.

rf35, it takes time. Here in one of the windest states, they have multiple wind farms, which decreases the load. The technology has been out there for over a century, but we are so hooked on oil, it has taken time to get them implemented. I am now using more electricity than I did 10 years ago because of all the gadgets I have, but my bill has been decreasing every year since I opted for the wind energy program.