North American Wind Power; Capacity Expected to Quadruple by 2010

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=41304





www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-231.pdf

in addition to his other plans. Can't remember where this is mentioned in the book though.

Nikola Tesla Man out of time, by Margaret Cheney (hopefully no relation !)
http://www.nickf.com/tesla.htm

Dick to wife: "Say wanna go quail hunting, deeeear?"

and years before Brokeback Mountain made it cool!

MESSIAH. Ask for a miracle.


You may get a recording though: "YOur call is important to God. Please stay on the line and an angel will be with you momentarily. ... The current wait time is 2000 years.

The planet is dying now. As well as being too slow for Ben, it's too slow for the coral reefs, the walrusses, the rain forests, the north american forests...

Oddly enough, this isn't one of my objections. whatever we do - if we do anything - is going to require a massive change in practices and huge investment. Bugger all + 40% will still be bugger all, but if the federal government pulled it's finger out and installed, say, 50 MW a day, we'd actually get somewhere. This isn't going to happen if it's left up to market forces, but is within the realm of possiblity. The growth rate for the first year would be 300%, not a measly 40: after 10 years you'd getting a significant chunk of power from wind (rather than having to wait 50 years at the current rate.)

(Edited for posting half a message :dunce:)

out) that can be grown faster. Even if you wanted to gamble on nuclear how fast can you build them? But really, after they are built, how many would be shut down because of 'glitches' that weren't supposed to ever happen. ("damn who a thunk THAT woulda happened."). And let's not forget is takes a helluva lot of resources to deal with those glitches. Resources that would be better spent putting up wind farms.

But this really is all moot. Because we have started building the wind farms, with or without Republican(/fossil fuel lobby) support and the momentum will increase. But we need to speed it up by helping the smaller wind turbine manufacturers expand faster (the 38% growth of 2005 was limited by the capacity of wind turbine manufacturers. When wind turbine manufacturers increase their capacity wind power growth will increase too). Then wind turbine installations will increase above the 38% figure. We should see wind pass nuclear in about 10 yrs, then after a few more year, coal. By then, we will have to address the storage issue, but I have already given links about storage technologies in development and installed (if you have any desire to read them). But if we were to get "serious" about expanding wind power this growth could be much faster.


The most realistic way of coping with Global Warming is renewables. Nuclear is a nice dream but alas, practical 'complications' just seem to keep obtruding into the dream and nuclear designers/builders keep getting surprised by things that "weren't supposed to happen".


I agree with your idea of the Government getting behind wind power (and all renewables) in a more aggressive manner (that's why I've been posting to this site re wind and renewables). I've said before we should be mobilizing our society as if going to war. Playing around with nuclear is just a distraction and a waste of money not to mention risky. But I know i'll never convince its devotees of that. That is not my reason for posting. I'm not trying to win any agruments, just trying to inform people of stuff they may not be aware of (thanks to very well industry-funded disinformation campaigns). I am confident if people are aprised of the facts and risks they will see what needs to be done (assuming of course "the people" will have any say in the matter.) The Time poll showed that 87% of the respondents would support tax incentives for companies developing renewable sources of energy (double the number in support of nuclear, BTW).. As I said before, when have you seen 87% if the populace agree on anything?

You don't have to tell me global warming needs to be addressed. (I was talking about global warming 30 years ago.) That's why I am posting to this site about renewables. It's time to get moving on renewables.. We are starting on Global warming at least 10 years too late (even by the most daring reckoning(sp?)..shoud've started 30 years ago, but nobody gave it any thought then.).

I have said before that the estimate of Wind Power potential for the U.S. being equal to 3 times the total US demand could very well prove to be conservative because of advancements in Wind Turbine design since 1991, when the study was done. Turbines are taller, as well as more efficient than those in use at time of study. Being taller, the swept area goes up with the square of the blade length and they are able to capture higher wind speeds as the winds are less variable as you get further from the ground. In addition to this, they are building more efficient wind turbines that can extract energy from lower wind speeds. This directly increases wind energy potential. Now, here is a study from Stanford University that says the same thing http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update24.htm (I say "now" not because this study is new, but because I just discovered it.)



My message is go to www.congress.org and email legislators telling them we need to aggressively expand renewable energy sources and remove pointless (unless you are a fossil fuel supporter) regulatory and statutory impediments to this. We should realize (and I think most people are starting to realize this), that we are in a dire situation. And we need to respond with some serious efforts to address this rapidly approaching climatic calamity (that is if we don't do anything to address it).

The difference is the opinion that nuclear power can (and my view, should) play in it.

I don't like nuclear power, per se: It can be extraordinarily dangerous, especially in the hand of money-oriented corporations and "what happens if I do this" engineers. That's no way to run a railroad. But you can take lessons from the French as to how it should be done - safely, cheaply and reliably.

The biggest advantage nuclear power has over the other non-fossil technologies is that we, globally, are quite good at it: we don't have to rely on inventing the z-method of TWh storage in x-years, we can put the things together on a production line basis now. Throwing the same sort of resources I proposed for wind at nuclear and completing - via production line - a 1GW plant a week, fossil electricity would be dead in the US within 10 years. Then we can divert those resources to solving the storage problems of more natural power sources, and - I would hope - be entirely shifted to renewables by the time I drop dead of old age. In the meantime, we'll have a planet that's wounded, but not terminal. We really don't have another 30 years to wait for wind and solar to catch up. Not at the rate we're going.

The problems of nuclear are overstated, in respect to climate change. Yes, there is a problem with waste, but as we've discussed on other threads, it is a) containable, and b) reducable by reactors, if we build them. The thousands of years of terror that some would have us believe are nothing compared to the the millions of years it will take Earth to recover from our existing CO2 output: Hell, if we have to we can shovel it into spaceships at launch it at the sun. It's manageable

The 'fuel problem' is nonexistent. I know for a fact I have 6 days worth of cat food in in my cupboard: This does not mean my cat will starve to death in a weeks time, just that the economic factors that govern extraction of cat-food from the local shop make it uneconomical to have more at the moment. The same applies to uranium and thorium. I hope you can see that.

But your government really does need a kick up the arse to do something.

nuclear plant?

How long do you think it takes to build and get a nuclear plant up to full operation? I must confess, I rather envy your faith in miracles.


BTW, I was wrong about posting the 'Quadruple in 5 yrs" article - WITHOUT CHECKING their numbers.

In 2005 wind power grew at 43% world-wide and 38% in the U.S. Quadrupling in 5 yrs translates into a 32% growth rate. NOw, the growth of Wind Power, worldwide and in the US was constrained by the lack of production capacity of the Wind Turbine manufacturers. Manufacturers are moving to correct that.

http://www.ge.com/stories/en/20423.html?category=Product_Business

"GE installed 1,346 turbines in 2005 and plans to ship more than 4,700 turbines over the next two years."

NOte: on an annualized basis (assuming linear growth rate, for simplicity) unless I am wrong, this represents a 75% rate of growth per year. (4700/2= 2350. 2350/1346= 1.7459).

Now if you use the 75% rate of growth that GE is planning on, whats your growth over 5 yrs? I know you "can do the math" but allow me:

IT comes to 16 times the current capacity.

It should also be noted wind turbine installations does NOT take into account that the wind turbines being built now are significantly more productive than the ones installed even 5 yrs ago. So the number of turbines installed will actually not reflect the most accurate estimate of wind power production growth,but it provides an approximation.



REgarding nuclear (again) how long do you expect these plants to last before requireiring decommissioning (a dirty word the nuclear industry would like to expunge from 'vocabulary)
Nuclear plants are licensed to operate for 40 yrs, but they average just 16 years (one has lasted past 30. One in Shoreham L.I. was in operation for 300 hours.).

A rather dubious salvation, if you ask me.

built simultaneously.


Money much better spent building Wind Farms. INcidentally the vast majority of money funding constructrion of wind farms is from commmercial sources --unlikie Nuclear's ample supply of tax dollars.

I've given you links to storage device builders and one which was installed in 2003.

9 to 11 yrs to reach 20 % of total electircal supply. I'm not sure that teh 20% figuere will not be breached by broad installations from Monatana to Texas and along with shore installations.

In the mean time wind will surpass nuclear without storage.

We all can be glad for thaat. But people need to go to www.congress.org to accelerate the process. It's possible to reach 100% growth per year.

That figure's based on "production line" approach: An AP1000 can be built in 18 months - which I included as lead time: Of course you couldn't build a nuke plant from a scratch in a week, any more than GE will build and install those turbines in 3.7 hours from scratch. I am ignoring planning and minbyism, though, so I'm probably being a bit optomistic there.

I'm not sure about your reactor lifetimes - I can name Sizewell and Dungeness off the top of my head, both still generating after 40 years - but it may be true of the US, which I've never held up as a shining example of nuclear perfection.

I'm not sure what point you're making about Shoreham. That the anti-nuke crown prefer coal? I'd agree with you there.

Have you solved your storage problem yet, BTW?

built simultaneously.

That's a lot of money, even for the U.S. Government. Money much better spent building Wind Farms. INcidentally the vast majority of money funding constructrion of wind farms is from commmercial sources --unlikie Nuclear's ample supply of tax dollars.

I've given you links to storage device builders and one which was installed in 2003.

renewable. rechargeable. remarkable.__© 2005 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers



9 to 11 yrs to reach 20 % of total electircal supply. I'm not sure that teh 20% figure will not be breached by broad installations from Monatana to Texas and along with shore installations.

In the mean time wind will surpass nuclear without storage.

We all can be glad for thaat. But people need to go to www.congress.org to accelerate the process. It's possible to reach 100% growth per year.

Based on the cost of the new Chivaux reactors, it would be $208 billion a year. If you can afford a war in Iraq, you can defiantly afford that.

With nuclear, you could replace all your electricity in 9-11 years, not an arbitrary 20%...

And John, I'll say this again on the grounds you might get it: Getting a couple of MWs of storage out of a fuel cell is too small, by a factor of several million, to be a solution. Get your head out the sand and do the math.

Edit: BTW, I don't know where my 18 months came from - you're right, 36 is more likely. :dunce:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=48480&mesg_id=48480



Fuel Levelized costs ...............(cents/kWh) (1996)
Coal..................................... 4.8-5.5 (more like 7 cents now)
Gas ..................................... 3.9-4.4(2.5 to 3 times this now)
Hydro ...................................5.1-11.3
Biomass ................................5.8-11.6
Nuclear ..........................11.1-14.5
Wind (without PTC) ............4.0-6.0 (as of 2004)
Wind (with PTC).................3.3-5.3

And if wind farms could be financed like utilities finance coal and gas fired plants (I think nuclear plants don't NEED financing. Aren't they always built with Government money?) the cost for Wind Power would go down another 40%! That would be 2.4 - 3.6 cents / kWh!

Seems like a no brainer to me. 4 - 6 cents versus 11.1 to 14.5 cents

(I didn't add the cost of the insurance subsidy and I dont' know if this includes the cost of decommissioning plants.).

Wind fills the same niche as gas and hydroelectricity: peak-load power. It cannot be compared to nuclear or coal unless it has base-load capacity, ie it can run 24 hr a day, 7 days a week, give or take a few weeks a year for maintainance. And the only way you can get base-load capacity is to use some kind of energy-capture, such as the vanadium storage you mentioned in another post.

I always come out in a rash when power co's offer you the chance to pay extra on the bill for wind power. The turbines pay for themselved after 7-8 years, and last for 30: It averages out at a 10% pa return on investment, if you leave out the maintanance. Imagine being payed for that!

The problem, as ever, is the backup.

http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/ess-modular.html


"A primary advantage of the VRB-ESS is in its modularity - the separation of the power component and the storage component of the system. A specified power rating is determined by the number of cell stacks maintained in the system while the amount of energy storage capacity required is determined by the amount of electrolyte in litres. If a plant is determined to require a higher power rating, or additional storage capacity is required, simply add additional cell stacks and/or tanks and electrolyte to the system."

Oh, and think about it, technologies do not remain static. In ten or twelve years when wind constitutes 20% or more of the total power supply (and we will need storage devices), the technology will have been developed beyond where it is today. Remember, over time technologies improve (well, with the possible exception of nuclear - chuckle).

You're not getting testy, are you?

With the kind of public funding Nuclear gets you could put up wind farms much faster than we are now - with increased capacity of wind turbine manufacturers increased. Hell with the kind of money nuclear has to play with, we could hit 100% growth per year easily. In ten years you would have grown wind power production by 1,024 times. Keep in mind this is much more do-able logistics wise than building all those nuclears you are talking about (how many would it take to replace all the power sources?)

Replace ALL the electricity production in nine or ten years? How many nuclear plants would that be (and how many construction workers trained in building nuclear facilities would you need to do this in 9 - 11 years? As far as cost goes I THINK it would be greater than $200 Billion. Would this be several thousand plants to replace ALL electricity sources? (by the way do you have enough nuclear material available to build that many plants in 9 to 10 years? -- just asking. How many plants in each state would that be?

I would say a more realistic 'real world' projection for nuclear plant expansion would be 4 in the space of 9 to 10 years 9twice that number being very optimistic).

OF course, lest we forget, you have to convince people to accept all that nuclear material in there backyards.

I don't mean to get you 'spitting bullets', just asking about the feasibility of that fast of a build-up - the money, the construction capacity (average homebuilder can't build a nuclear plant, how many Nuke builders do we have in U.S... 2, 3?), the fuel and uh, the locations (that's a lot of siting to do in 9 to 10 years)?

To store enough power to make wind a base-load power option instead of the peak-load power option it now is, and how much room do these facilities take up?

On edit:

I found this quote here: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/vandium_reflux_.html

"The cost is quoted in $/kWh or $/MWh since the VRB is an "Energy Storage System" and should not be considered a UPS or even a generator. Although the VRB provides the full UPS capability, its primary use is for energy storage for long periods, which UPS and conventional technologies cannot provide. As an approximate cost, systems are priced between $350-$600 per kWh, sizes ranging from a few hundred kW's to MW size systems. As the size of the system in kWh increases, the cost per unit decreases significantly. For example, a system rated at 100MWh would have an installed cost of about $325 per kWh. The incremental cost of storage for large systems is approximately $150 per kWh."

Someone with better math skills than I, how much would it cost provide sufficient storage for the United States at these rates?

you are talking about enormous differences of scale here. "As the size of the system in kWh increases, the cost per unit decreases significantly."

In the article about the already existing installation in the U.S. (not a huge one) I believe it said it addded 15% to the cost of the Wind Power installation.

Trying to guess as to cost on a scale thousands of times greater is quite a trick. Maybe VRB could offer a guesstimate. But it would certainly be less than the 15% figure they experienced at the Utah installation.

Here's some input on this subject on the Google dscusion site.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/905b40bc119dc9f1/c472d685c409fc35

This is the site of the Manufacturer I keep telling Dead_Parrot about.

http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/faqs.html

The quote you included from the Fraserdomain comes from the page which the link above takes you to. Here's another quote from the VRB page:

I'm a bit short of figures, but there are 9 power plants in the LA region: If we assume each produces 1Gw (which is wild guess), then a VR installation to relace them would ~$1.3 billion per hour storage: ~$32 Billion would get you through a windless 24-hours, and you could cover the whole US for $1.5 trillion.

So long as 24 hours is long enough: Wind power fan sites talk a lot about average wind speed, but not the longest period without wind.

(Disclaimer: This is only a ball park figure to play with)

How much might we loose because of Stevens ammendment to the CG bill. Restricting windmills near ferry routes.

p.s. Can we ban tankers from coming within 100 miles of a ferry route?

I heard he GOT that bridge in the end (even though it was removed from that spending bill) through some kind of funds manipulations.

and 10 left over!

According to my envelope, that would give them a GDP per capita of $637,142.86. :D