Wind: cheaper and three times more efficient.

[CNS]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

Enviros won't let us install wind turbines because birds run into them.

[pike]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

Enviros won't let us install wind turbines because birds run into them.

This. It's a really good way to ease energy dependence, and we have to worry about the birds 

[wetwillie]

Didn't read the full article, did it mention anywhere how much of our current power demand could be reduced with wind?  10 maybe 15 percent?

[jtksu]

Saw a deal on TV about this.  Seems like a no brainer.  Few (serious) questions for you guys:  Can you install these things on farmland?  Seems like they're plenty tall enough to not cause any intereference.  Seems like a great way for dudes in KS to wean themselves off the gov't subsidies.  Also- are they super loud?  I've only driven be them and didn't really notice much noise.  I guess what I'm wondering is, if a large amount of these are built in a certain area, does that area become a uninhabitable area?  Regardless, I would think the pros easily overweigh the cons.

[j-von]

Saw a deal on TV about this.  Seems like a no brainer.  Few (serious) questions for you guys:  Can you install these things on farmland?  Seems like they're plenty tall enough to not cause any intereference.  Seems like a great way for dudes in KS to wean themselves off the gov't subsidies.  Also- are they super loud?  I've only driven be them and didn't really notice much noise.  I guess what I'm wondering is, if a large amount of these are built in a certain area, does that area become a uninhabitable area?  Regardless, I would think the pros easily overweigh the cons.

You can install them right next to your house if you wanted.  Either with a new pole, or a lot of people here in Kansas could use a pre-existing windmill base if it's still sturdy.  They are virtually silent.

If I lived out in the country I would definitely be looking into it.

[ednksu]

Birds have trouble with the wind turbines that are fast spinners.  Think the one by the fire station at 2000 Denison (across from the Rec).  The big ones out in west Kansas are not as much of an issue.   

[06wildcat]

Lots of Kansas farmers don't like wind turbines because it "ruins the view".

 

[sys]

in a rational world, i don't see how wind could compete with solar on a large scale.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

in a rational world, i don't see how wind could compete with solar on a large scale.

Yes, wind power has much higher maintenance costs than solar.

[pike]

in a rational world, i don't see how wind could compete with solar on a large scale.

Yes, wind power has much higher maintenance costs than solar.

Yeah, and when the brakes go out....

[Brock Landers]

The turbines are only loud if you attach vuvuzelas to the end of the blades. Obligatory Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) devil's advocate statement:

Wind is too unreliable.  I'm looking out my window now and the leaves aren't moving.

[j-von]

I wish Kansas had wind & solar incentives, rebates, etc.  We are way behind in that it looks like.

[AbeFroman]

Those wind things blow my rough ridin' mind. They are so huge

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

How much cheaper and more efficient is it than Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil? 

My guess is that it's less than 0.05 times cheaper and efficient

[CNS]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

How much cheaper and more efficient is it than Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil? 

My guess is that it's less than 0.05 times cheaper and efficient

From article:

NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology.

[06wildcat]

Man it's been an incredibly bad week for FSD.

[jmlynch1]

I have heard that something about sun reflecting of the blades and the strobing (for lack of a better word) has given people problems. I like them though.

[CNS]

I have heard that something about sun reflecting of the blades and the strobing (for lack of a better word) has given people problems. I like them though.

ray bans

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

How much cheaper and more efficient is it than Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil? 

My guess is that it's less than 0.05 times cheaper and efficient

From article:

NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology.

I'll admit I didn't read the article, BUT

This pie in the sky pro forma bullshit from some "green energy" website hardly answers my question. 

I think those numbers are based on non-reality and include "environmental costs" and the cost to build a new coal plant.  I googled "price of coal per mwh" and got results well below $90 (which included those other costs).

Surprisingly, it's hard to find any data on the cost of coal from a source that isn't pushing green energy.  This leads me to believe coal is even cheaper than I originally thought.

Either way, it doesn't include gas or oil.

[Kat Kid]

I find it a tad bit odd, that someone so relentlessly sure of the power of the market place and individual responsibility has nothing to say about the economic problem of negative externalities.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I find it a tad bit odd, that someone so relentlessly sure of the power of the market place and individual responsibility has nothing to say about the economic problem of negative externalities.

The market place has spoken.  When wind is ACTUALLY cheaper it will get its fair shake.  We don't need fuzzy numbers from some green thumping website clouding up the real issue and confusing dolts like yourself and cns

[Kat Kid]

I find it a tad bit odd, that someone so relentlessly sure of the power of the market place and individual responsibility has nothing to say about the economic problem of negative externalities.

The market place has spoken.  When wind is ACTUALLY cheaper it will get its fair shake.  We don't need fuzzy numbers from some green thumping website clouding up the real issue and confusing dolts like yourself and cns

Do you contend that there are no negative externalities from coal, gas, nuclear, oil etc.?  Because those impact the "market place" and are concealed by the "price."  Maybe you slept through that part of econ.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea?hpt=hp_bn11

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
 
Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
 
The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).
 
Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

How much cheaper and more efficient is it than Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil? 

My guess is that it's less than 0.05 times cheaper and efficient

From article:

NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology.

I'll admit I didn't read the article, BUT

This pie in the sky pro forma bullshit from some "green energy" website hardly answers my question. 

I think those numbers are based on non-reality and include "environmental costs" and the cost to build a new coal plant.  I googled "price of coal per mwh" and got results well below $90 (which included those other costs).

Surprisingly, it's hard to find any data on the cost of coal from a source that isn't pushing green energy.  This leads me to believe coal is even cheaper than I originally thought.

Either way, it doesn't include gas or oil.

Who in their right mind would not figure in the cost of building a coal plant when determining the cost of coal power?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I find it a tad bit odd, that someone so relentlessly sure of the power of the market place and individual responsibility has nothing to say about the economic problem of negative externalities.

The market place has spoken.  When wind is ACTUALLY cheaper it will get its fair shake.  We don't need fuzzy numbers from some green thumping website clouding up the real issue and confusing dolts like yourself and cns

Do you contend that there are no negative externalities from coal, gas, nuclear, oil etc.?  Because those impact the "market place" and are concealed by the "price."  Maybe you slept through that part of econ.

I am highly skeptical of the costs (negative externalities) the green website used to compare the two.  You're the one who can't see past their own motives.  This is the equivalent of using the BP website to assess the cost of wind or solar energy.  dumbfuck.