WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008
Wind Energy Gets A Lift In New Report
Government Report Says Turbines Could Be On Par With Nuclear As Energy Source By 2030
-
Interactive
Alternative Energy
Learn about the types of renewable energy that are used in the U.S. and the regions of the country considered to be most suitable for each kind.
- Stories
- Congress Divided On Energy Plan
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.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from SciTech
-
Video
Bottled H2O Backlash
-
Video
Hohm, sweet Hohm
-
Video
Loaded: On Tour
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 CommentsI do not live a spartan existence. I have worldwide email access, computer navigation, Internet in port, hot showers, and I process my drinking water from raw seawater. It does require a little effort, but with that effort wanton waste is eliminated.
The fact is that we are going to have to adjust our lifestyles somewhat to eliminate wasted power. Americans need to pull their heads out of the sand and cut back on waste. That alone will keep our energy demands down dramatically.
There is a limit to the available energy on my boat and I stay within that limit or suffer the consequences. This is a lesson that millions of Americans will have to learn while alternative energy production is explored and developed.
I work for a company called Siemens and they are building wind turbines in Iowa.
Around here, they are having a big fight as to wether to erect them or not. A lot of people think they will bring down property values.
Keep wasting your time.I guess what Japan and France uses for energy is not good enough for the USA.
Have any of you wondered why is Diesel so expensive?
(Because a lot of what we buy is hauled by trucks-everything is more expensive.)
Close the power plants that use heating oil-replace them with Nuclear reactors.
Wind power is costly to build, and right now receives huge government subsidies for the base cost of construction (and you could build and operate a nuclear power plant %u2013 and give the electricity away if the same subsidy rates were provided to nuclear power %u2013 and have lots of money left over).
That is fine for building some wind power to get the industry off the ground, but not for building a lot of wind power.
Transmission is a bigger issue as the best places to build a lot of wind power are also fairly far from where the power is needed. Long distance high voltage transmission lines could easily exceed the cost of building the wind turbines. Coal and Nuclear plants can typically be built within a hundred miles of where they are needed.
Finally, wind power has an issue that we are now only learning about. How its instability affects the electrical grid. Currently, evidence is that when wind power gets above 10% of the grid capacity; that the natural changes in power production from variations in the wind become too much for the grid to handle. There have been two major grid area shutdowns attributed to this in the world in the last several years.
Wind power has its place. But I find 20% to be optimistic. Also, current estimated life is: Wind turbine, 20 years. Fossil and Nuclear plants 60 years.
It''s about time America.
Not a word about the obvious alternative-nuclear power.
Keep wasting your time.I guess what Japan and France uses for energy is not good enough for the USA.
Have any of you wondered why is Diesel so expensive?
(Because a lot of what we buy is hauled by trucks-everything is more expensive.)
Close the power plants that use heating oil-replace them with Nuclear reactors.
Posted by mediapreachr
----
Nuclear energy still has drawbacks .. what to do with the waste for X# centuries and it still produces HEAT, which we seem to have an overabundance of.
Wind (and wave and solar for that matter) produce little if any waste heat in the generation process ... IMHO we should be looking more in that direction, producing less heat is a simple step towards reducing global warming.
And for the bird lovers out there ... look into vertical axis windmills, lower returns but easier on the bird population of thats an issue in your area.
---
"Huge" relative to what?
Bush lavishly subsidizes nuclear, currently offering each new plant project some $18.5 billion in loan guarantees and up to 80 percent of building cost-- this help to an aging industry which Wall Street refuses to underwrite.
More pointedly, Bush did not offer comparable billions to wind and other alternatives, despite all the rhetoric about addressing climate change. And unlike his Nuclear Power 2010 initative, there is no sense of urgency about being held hostage to Big Oil (and the MidEast) or to nuclear catastrophe.
And even discounting the inevitable cost overruns and shoddy construction for each new nuclear plant, nuclear risks were consistent and serious enough to drive Wall Street financier Warran Buffet to forget about investment in nuclear.
However, one small group of investors still generates profit from the older nuclear plants. They do so under the mantle of "deregulation" of public power utilities, state by state. Under the negotiated terms of deregulation, these investors stealthily pass their old indebtedness for aging nuclear plants to the public in the form of "stranded costs"-- and the public ends up with the bill!
And the risk, as well. The same investors insist on running many of the older nuclear plants at higher rates of wear and tear, an especiaily risky practice with plants already at maturity or old age.
Former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, along with former EPA head Christie Whitman, are paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute to run the "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition", and push the idea that nuclear got its bad rap for nothing.
They speak about US nuclear policy in step with the same Bush administration which hid the truth about global warming for years (in addition to other truth about Iraq, etc.) Bush, at one time, even redacted references to global warming from federal studies.
In true Beltway lobby style, the two nuclear advocates would *** wind and solar with a mock-scientific appraisal and very faint praise.
The target sentence read, "In true Beltway lobby style, the two nuclear advocates would *** wind and solar with a mock-scientific appraisal and very faint praise."
Meanwhile, anybody with a word processor can figure out how to misspell creatively for almost any word in the DYCKtionary.
"there are significant costs, challenges and impacts"
So is this power inexpensive, or significantly more expensive? Sounds like more Beltway Doublespeak!
(No, I am not saying that we should not pursue wind power. I am saying that we should not avoid other technologies because we think wind will be "the answer.")
If I remember correctly, I think the first wind farm I recall was in the late 70''s/Early 80''s? There was resistance because people thought they were an eyesore. I disagree.
Let''s all put pinwheels in our yards or outside our apartment windows and hook them up to our power supply. Then, we can overcharge the power company for our contributions, and subsequently, the power companies will be paying US to provide power for other nations....hmmmmm....
These observations have convinced me that wind farms are fakes intended to convince gullible people that they are generating electricity.
The spindles of the blades aren''t fitted with generators -- they''re actually electric motors to make blades move.
Why not just build 375,000 of them and generate all our electricity? That''''s only 7,500 per state. In a state 200 miles by 200 miles (40,000 sq miles) that''''s only about 5 wind generators per square mile. So unless the energy people are lying about the efficiency of these things (which they probably are) why wouldn''''t that work?
Posted by SistaTee
----
Because while everyone from Ted Kennedy to the people that build houses in the *mountains* (then try to pass laws against building in the *mountains*) TALK about wind, solar, and wave power ... they REALLY REALLY *DO NOT* want them built anywhere near them. Ted Kennedy used the FAA to stop the building of wind towers near his seaside home for instance.
The tree huggers have stopped wind farms in many areas on the basis that they are a danger to birds, vertical axis towers would eliminate that, so would Darwin .. the ones dumb enough to fly into the blades wouldn''t breed.
If you drive past a wind farm, the blades are either stationary or all are turning at the same rate regardless of the wind speed.
These observations have convinced me that wind farms are fakes intended to convince gullible people that they are generating electricity.
The spindles of the blades aren''''t fitted with generators -- they''''re actually electric motors to make blades move.
Posted by juwboy
----
Current tech wind turbines have a minimum speed at which they''ll turn .. and a maximum effective speed that usually not very far from minimum.
PerryCBS1 said, "Wind power is costly to build, and right now receives huge government subsidies..."
---
"Huge" relative to what?
Good question.
New wind turbines receive between 2.5 and 3 cents per KWH subsidy on their theoretical capacity. This is a combination of a Production Tax Credit (currently about 2 Cents per KWH), accelerated depreciation (about 1/2 Cents per KWH), and various subsides that states are forcing the utility customers to pay.
The nuclear plant loan guarantees are only expected to cost the government about 2% to administer them - or about $370 Million. No one is expecting that these loans will not be paid off.
That amount of loans will build at least 3000 MW of nuclear (and probably twice that):
3000 MW, 60 years, 90% capacity factor, $370 Million subsidy = 0.00026 cents per KWHR subsidy.
When you consider that wind turbines have a capaciy factor in the range of 30 - 33%. The reality is that there is between 7.5 and 9 cents of subsidy for each KWHR generated. Add the expected life of 20 years (which no one has actually demonstrated yet) - and the subsidy (assuming that the replacements will also be subsidized) is between 22.5 and 27 cents per KWHR on a 60 year basis.
Overall, new wind power is currently being subsidized at a rate of about 100,000 times that of new nuclear power.
A Nuclear power plant is expected to cost about 4.6 %u2013 5.5 cents per KWHr to build and operate over its 60 year life.
A Nuclear power plant is expected to cost about 4.6 to 5.5 cents per KWHr to build and operate over its 60 year life.
Addition comment:
The reason so many countries are building nuclear power plants in the world is because of how cheap they really are over their life.
Somewhat pricey to build, but relatively cheap to operate (although "clean coal" plants are about the same amount to build).
I note also that other countries have dealt with the waste issue adequately as well, and that its disposal cost is included in the cost of operation. The US seems locked in a political tussle on the waste issue. Their are several different commonly accepted methods in the world for dealing with it; without causing a huge problem for future generations.
That too is a good question; and the answer is why the US Government had to offer loan guarantees.
The fact is that Bankers around the world are more than happy to fund nuclear power plants. They are funding them in about 20 countries right now. Just not the US.
In the US in the 1980s the regulators created quite the regulatory mess. Approving plants to be built; then changing the rules while the plant was being built; and sometimes just suspending a project for no good reason. The result is that the average construction time line and cost tripled, and companies and bankers lost lots of money.
In the rest of the world a nuclear power plant takes 6 to 8 years to build once a decision is made. The costs are well known. No one knows how long it will take in the US. Current estimates are 10 years. The Government has offered the loan guarantees as a method of convincing companies to try the new regulatory process so they can show it works.
If the NRC can demonstrate a reasonable and predictable regulatory process (and cost) for approval and licensing; then the floodgates of financing in the US will open.
This would solve two problems those ugly towers would now be a thing worth looking at and the power plants would be spread across the county in places were the power is needed instead of on our beeches or our mountain ranges that are far from were the powers is need the whole country would be out to catch the wind traveling from the west to the east and the sun from the east to the west. Their would be POWER going IN From both sources at all times of day and night with the avenger wind at 10 mph across the US and 17 hours of sun adding to this how could we lose especially if the solar collectors are placed on both sides of wind blades.
: ? Bright Ideas start from a seed and grow. Just think about it.
The New Mexico Wind Energy Center, the state''s most ambitious renewable energy project, officially went online Oct. 1, 2003. The center is the seventh-largest wind generation project in the United States.
Located 170 miles southeast of Albuquerque and 20 miles northeast of Fort Sumner, the wind center is perfectly suited for eastern New Mexico''s windy landscape. Power production does not require water, produce emissions or generate solid waste.
The wind center consists of 136 turbines, each standing 210 feet high. The facility can produce up to 200 megawatts of power, or enough electricity to power 94,000 average-sized New Mexico homes.
Florida-based FPL Energy owns and manages the facility, while PNM purchases all of its output.
In May 2003, PNM was awarded the 2003 Utility Leadership Award from the American Wind Energy Association. The award recognized PNM''s commitment to renewable energy and its contribution to the advancement of wind energy.
Listen to the arguments brought by the wanna be activists.What happened to US science graduates?
Oh,they''re commodity traders now...
The current situation(paying high prices for basic items and food)requires more than one party-oil futures traders(gamblers)and Sierra Club activists(non-productive members of society who are glorified bureaucrats).
Start building nuclear reactors now.Close the heating oil plants as you build nclear rectors.
The waste is to be buried in a chamber beneath the plant to be reused or sold accordingly.
All the counter arguments are based on the reader''s ignorance-the new design reactor is better,safer,more efficient than its 70''s model.
Build your own (american made)today-or you''ll be forced to buy one foreign made(Toshiba is working on a fast breed model right now)tomorrow.
Thousands of feathered creatures are cut to shreds every year in California.
Also who''s gonna take care of hundreds of miles of buried cable and haul away the carcasses of the critters who chewed on the cables?
It''s time to make a distinction-what is better:
-Nuclear engineer and tech jobs-highly paid and a real career;or
-Useless,pandering bureaucrats,no better than the priestly class of the old(who were praying on the beliefs of the poor).
Thanks. That''s a fair distance from where I live, but I guess it''s a start.
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.
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.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 Comments