SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear
A surprising aerodynamic innovation in wind turbine design called the 'wind lens' could triple the output of a typical wind turbine, making it less costly than nuclear power.
Mon, Aug 29 2011 at 2:47 AM
Related Topics:
Snapshot from video
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.
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.
Well, such a breakthrough has been made, and it's called the "wind lens."
Imagine: no more dirty coal power, no more mining deaths, no more nuclear disasters, no more polluted aquifers as a result of fracking. Our entire society powered by the quiet "woosh" of a wind turbine. Kyushu University's wind lens turbine is one example of the many innovations happening right now that could in the near future make this utopian vision a reality.
Yes, it's a heck of a lot of wind turbines (about 2,640,000) but the U.S. with its endless miles of prairie and agricultural land is one of the few nations that could actually deploy such a network of wind turbines without disrupting the current productivity of the land (Russia and China also come to mind). It would also be a win-win for states in the highest wind area — the Midwest — which has been hard hit by the recession. And think of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be created building a 21st century energy distribution system free of the shackles of ever-diminishing fossil fuel supplies.
It's also important to point out that growth in wind power capacity is perfectly symbiotic with projected growth in electric vehicles. EV battery packs can soak up wind power produced during the night, helping to equalize the curve of daytime energy demand. So the controversial investment currently being entertained by President Obama to pipe oil down from the Canadian Tar Sands would — in my utopian vision — be a moot point.
It is indeed a lofty vision, but the technology we need is now in our reach. And think of the benefits of having our power production fed by a resource that is both free and unlimited. One downside often cited by advocates of coal and gas power is that wind turbines require a lot more maintenence than a typical coal or gas power plant. But in a lagging economy this might just be wind power's biggest upside — it will create lots and lots of permanent jobs, sparking a new cycle of economic growth in America.
Editor's note: Want more info? Karl breaks down the math in his next post.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Earn 100 points for signing up for a free iMeet trial now.
Sponsored by
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
- Archaeologists unearth 5,000-year-old 'third-gender' caveman
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- Explore 30,000 galaxies in 3 minutes [Video]
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- Bras don't actually work, says French study
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Are mermaids real?
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
You are comparing apples to internal radiation in the Japanese children from nuclear plant meltdowns? That is so insensitive.
"nuclear plant meltdowns!"
Uh - there has been exactly ONE partial nuclear plant meltdown in Japan - in a plant that was over thirty years old where maintenance was sorely neglected.
Please engage the part of your brain responsible for rational thought.
There were 3 nuclear reactor melt downs in Japan. Here is a CNN article called "3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms" -- .
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-06/world/japan.nuclear.meltdown_1_nuclea...
And there's Godzilla! Godzilla! Look what he did to Tokyo! Do we want a Godzilla in New York? Or Los Angeles? And look at all those other 1950s science documentaries: giant ants; giant spiders; giant women; shrinking men...we have to stop the nuclear madness!
Nuclear madness is radiation in your milk and water---> Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk----
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in...
Coal is about 100 times as dirty as nuclear. A coal power plant puts about 100 times as much radiation into the environment as a nuclear plant. This is due to the trace amounts of radium and thorium in the coal itself.
Why is there so much mercury in the fish we eat ?
Coal power plants also dump tons of mercury nto the air -- they are responsible for about 40% of the mercury in fish.
Nuclear power plants spew radiation like cesium-137 and tritium which is found in veggies, milk, water around the power plants. Nuclear power plants use 200 dangerous chemicals in their operations. Nuclear power plants use uranium and plutonium, both deadly to humans. Nuclear waste is forever.
Try to offer your opinion without insults.
The half life for plutonium-239 is 24,000 years. It will fully degrade in maybe 240,000 years. That's a loooooooooooooooooooooong time.
The radiation from nature is not the same as man-made radiation from nuclear power plants. But you already know that.
Facts: Nuclear power plants make man-made radiation which is toxic and cancer-causing when ingested or inhaled.
So do coal fired plants. So do propane and oil fired plants. And so, too, will wind farms and solar farms when their entire manufacturing cycle is taken into account, not to mention the staggering loss of land they will require.
There's only one risk-free state, and that's when you're dead. I'll happily trade the small risk posed by nuclear power plants for the cheap, abundant electricity they provide that makes so many of life's other risks dwindle to near zero.
Nuclear power plants don't pose a small risk, they pose a large, deadly, unforgiving radiological risk. Unless you like drinking milk and water with radiation: radiation-detected-in-drinking-water-in-13-more-us-cities-cesium-137-in-vermont-milk
No, you're wrong.
Read the NRC's report which shows radiation emitted from nuclear power plants in their daily operations is found in the nearby water, air, milk.... http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
It's true that nuclear plants "spew" radiation into the atmosphere. The report you refer to indicates that many of the values are on the order of 1E-03 curies or smaller of the longer half-life elements such as Co-60. The shorter half-life ones are higher but they decay at a far higher rate.
How much is released by the buring of fossil fuels? I haven't seen any documented sources on it but it would be an interesting comparison.
Radiation from Japan's nuclear meltdowns was found in the water and milk in the United States:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in...
We need to use more geothermal energy. It lasts a million years and is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Drill 2 holes. Pump down water, and get steam to run turbines and generate electricity. Google geothermal energy and you get a map of good sites all over western US.
This is one of the most exciting developments in our lifetimes. If handled properly, it can put the United States back into the world forefront for development, engineering and production, if we follow through on it and do not listen to the naysayers and vested interests who will try to maintain the hegemony of fossil fuels.
Marshall hagy
Chicago
"Looking for the greatest unexplained cause of cancer? It's still radioactive fallout."
www.nuclearcrimes.org
Quite possibly one of the most slanted, biased, outright fraudulent websites on the entire Internet. And that's saying a lot, mind you.
The website lists actual atomic tests as found in encyclopedias, so it's not fraudulent. The real question is why the truth offends.
Pages