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
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 7 recipes featuring fresh fava beans
- How to clean brass naturally
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- Stone Age people may have battled against a zombie apocalypse
- Jon Stewart explains the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
- Could your child survive alone in the woods?
- 12 best new features of the Samsung Galaxy S4
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 5 healthy juicing recipes to refresh your routine
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Sure. 'cause plowing up an area the size of Texas to install wind power is such a non-filthy activity.
If there was an accident at a wind farm, it wouldn't leave the area uninhabitable for thousands of years, or spew radiation into the food, air, water and spread it around the world like what happened with Japan's nuclear meltdowns. The radiation spread around the globe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag&feature=player_embedded
No such things have ever occurred during any real nuclear accident, either, despite your overstrained imagination.
And in terms of widespread destruction, I'm quite certain that all the nuclear accidents combined have never devastated an area the size of Texas, as this project would.
Here is a map showing the radiation that spread around the globe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag&feature=player_embedded
Here is an article showing the radiation found in the milk/water in the U.S.:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in...
Yes and here is the UC Berkeley forum on the radiation from Japan found in U.S. veggies and milk: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218
And here is EPA's website for monitoring the radiation from Japan:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-data-map.html
Fortunately, the rest of the developed world utterly disagrees. Not so good, though, for the US if Luddite attitudes like this prevail.
Unfortunately, the "developed" world is becoming a toxic nuclear waste dump and intelligent people are waking up to this fact.
Austria has huge windfarms that power much of the country.
In southern Sweden, many individual homes have their own windmills. The new windmills are much quieter and the blades move much slower so as not to affect birds. In the U.S., more homes are putting up their own windmills.
You can read about people living "off the grid" on:
www.motherearthnews.comn
we could also use hydroelectric power from the wave acation and the currents. it is done in scandanavia and works well coupled with - get this- SOLAR power even in their low sun area
We had past reports like this for solar and wind power generation which ended up being inaccurate. Don't get too excited.
The biggest problem with wind is its woeful inefficiency, its terrible environmental footprint, its unreliability and its high costs....other than all that, it's just wonderful.
The biggest pitfall of wind turbines is periodic maintenance. These beast are expensive to maintain! The need period tune ups, oil change, etc. Just look at all those damaged wind turbines in California where no one is maintaining it because they were too costly to maintain. These are worse environmental disasters! Billions of dollars down the drain! Mind you, these are not setup and go wind turbines.
Already exists. Just waiting for it to be released for residential applications. Commercial already exists and is for sale. Tested and in use by Google, eBay, national retail stores, etc.
Why believe any of the claims? No explanation of why this works is presented. Absent any engineering or scientific explanation of why this turbine is 'better' is there any existing proto-type that merely demonstrates the claimed improvements? I thought not
So why is this even news?
There's a prototype discussed in the accompanying video.
These are nothing more than ducted fans, which are well understood. The gains are real, but manufacturing them requires very tight tolerances that drive up costs significantly.
You have internet access, right. Look it up. This is just a news story. Not a research paper!
This is insane. 1/4th the area of Alaska is colossal. And after constructing enough wind farms to carpet 312 New York Cities, we've only covered 1/3rd of our present energy needs?
the wind energy is fine and wonderful as long as the design of the generator protects wildlife. bird, bat and possibly insect annihilation is no longer an option, for our convenience sake.
Have you considered the danger to wildlife posed by open mines such as the mountaintop removal in WV? How about all of the animals killed by coal trucks? What about all of the animals killed when oil hits water? Remember the gulf? Do you think Japan's nuclear release after the earthquake did not harm any animals?
By the way, I just annihilated a bunch of ants in my kitchen.
Uh - because this design won't work unless the blades are contained with the duct as shown.
Deep sea thermal vents are effectively inaccessible for large-scale exploitation. They may become more feasible as energy prices rise, but they need to rise a lot before the cost of operating at such depths becomes reasonable.
Here is a radiation map that shows where the radiation from Japan's nuclear meltdowns went around the world.
Check if your area got any, then decide if you still want nuclear or you're willing to give wind and solar a chance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag&feature=player_embedded
OK, I've decided. Nuclear, all the way. Because it actually works and requires a much, much smaller footprint than a solar farm.
Nuclear power leaves a huge footprint. Check out this NRC report showing the dangerous radiation that nuclear power plants spew into the environment around each nuclear power plant. Find the power plant closest to your back yard and see what radiation is found in the surrounding water, fish, veggies, etc. Radiation can cause cancer and some of the radiation lasts for hundreds of years.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
Pages