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
- Tornado survivor finds dog during live TV interview
- Why we turn to dogs when disaster strikes
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 5 of the best-looking cars ever
- Superfoods: 11 berries to improve your health
- Rebounding from adversity: 7 cities that have survived tragedy
- Bride finds self-esteem by taking a diet from her mirror
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- What causes tornadoes?
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
The current energy companies will simply buy enough congressmen to keep this technology out.
Why wouldn't they want to make energy cheaper and increase their profits?
i'm likin it.
it's almost an airfoil. how about doing the whole airfoil shape around the blades?
a venturi effect, maybe even better. then put a small one on homes.
no grid changes, just less tax on existing system.
Converting an area the size of Alaska (FYI our largest state) to wind power is insane. The logistics plus the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) crowd won't allow it. Besides, I wonder how many birds will get whacked by the blades? Will the construction harm other endangered animals like a certain mouse is doing here in Colorado? This is a hare brained idea.
One of the problems in the US is that there are so many people that look at a new idea from it will never work position instead of working to under stand the pro's and con's then evaluate the idea.
What makes you think the people have anything to do with what happens in the US any more?
An even bigger problem is the enormous number of gullible idiots who believe everything they here and are incapable of rational analysis. And the idiotic idea that we should even consider a technology that hasn't even proven itself in the lab and use it to replace the ENTIRE national power supply.
Yes, the US has large praires, but who wants to see these eyesores on them??
You ever been to the prarie? How about been inside a nuclear power plant that's melted down (Japan)?
Would you prefer we continue burning billions of dollars worth of foreign oil or poisoning the sky with coal power-plants? Or, we could integrate clean, renewable, and economically viable solutions like this on top of already productive crop-land?
I don't know about you, but I would be excited to see systems like these on top of miles upon miles of corn/soy/wheat fields. I don't think that is an eyesore at all (unless you find those crop fields' views magical to begin with).
I would.
I don't like the Baldwin brothers. They are piggy looking and are goosestepping right wing goons.
How much metal and other material is required to make this many wind mills? How about maintaining them?
A lot. Not to mention the vast amount of land needed for installation and maintenance roads that would need to be developed - an area roughly the size of Texas, according to the article, and likely a lot more than that.
Its amazing to avoid a Global warming .
Alec Baldwin is a slime ball.
When figuring the efficiency that was quoted was the high maintenance factored in? If not this is a crazy article since we can make jobs by digging holes and filling them in! I suggest that the writer state the truth clearly.
Alec Baldwin recently voiced his strong opinion against nuclear and likes the idea of solar:
http://enenews.com/alec-baldwin-big-lie-that-nuclear-is-clean-power-30-m...
Wow -- Alec Baldwin. That is THE number one name that pops into my mind whenever I think of the concept "energy expert."
Pages