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
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- Explore 30,000 galaxies in 3 minutes [Video]
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Bras don't actually work, says French study
- Why you should not plant bamboo in your yard
- 5 mind-bending facts about dreams
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
The most important factor to bare in mind is the effect on global wind currents and the essential role they play.
The second factor would be the amount of iron ore required to build a sufficient number of turbines...
:3
Nothing about the actual design of the Lens just more wind propaganda. This story does show the uses of recycling however.
Watch the video.
Excuse me but wind is already less costly than nuclear. What the nuclear proponents don't tell you about nuclear is this: their cost estimate does not include the cost of government provided research (free), the cost of government provided limitations on liability (free) and the cost of storing nuclear waste (10,000 years!).
And the cost of decommissioning a plant, even if it hasn't gone into meltdown. 70 Billion I believe.
Someone has obviously never heard of sunk costs. How much does a car someone gave you for free last year cost you today.
This is nothing new. I got so job selling this type of turbines back in 08.
Smarter designs include the lens within the blades.
Nuclear is the most expensive way to boil water.
"Massive chunks of our land" is the unused Great Plains of the Midwest - the plains are NOT aesthetically pleasing, and are currently underutilized. There is nothing there - why not put some wind turbines? Have you been to the Great Plains? THERE IS NOTHING. Not a tree for as far as the eye can see. Absolutely empty.
apparently you grow all of your food and everyone else you know. It may not be aesthetically pleasing to you but my family has fed people from that land for over 150 yrs, through drouts, depression, and dust storms. I will take my Great Plains over your concrete existence any day!
Often wind turbines are built on land that already has agricultural purposes. These farmers and ranchers can continue to still use the land around the turbines, they just get a check from the developer for the use of their wind resources. With nuclear, the land near and around the site is highly regulated for anything other than the production of nuclear power, and after the lifetime, the site will be unusable.
Often wind turbines are built on land that already has agricultural purposes. These farmers and ranchers can continue to still use the land around the turbines, they just get a check from the developer for the use of their wind resources. With nuclear, the land near and around the site is highly regulated for anything other than the production of nuclear power, and after the lifetime, the site will be unusable.
My dad can't grow a radioactive carrot. Those checks from the windmills keep him from throwing farm implements at me and that's good enough for me!
You cannot possibly be trying to compare a single windmill to a nuclear or coal powerplant. Sure each individual windmill is a lot less complicated, but how many of these are you going to have to build for each coal or nuclear plant you take off line?
This is a pipe dream. 2.6 million turbines?! No. 25% average output? No. Smart grid? Not gonna happen anytime soon. A much more efficient, cheap, and viable alternative is LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors) They can't melt down, are cheaper per/kwH than coal, and don't need to be floated out on the ocean for wind. Also we have enough thorium for thousands of years, all CO2 free. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU
In 2010, about 5000 MW of windpark was added in the US alone to the 190.000 MW that was already installed worldwide.
China added about 18000 MW in 2010, surpassing the US in total amount of MW
Assume that 3 MW is the average size windturbine, then these 5000 MW is about 1600 turbines.
The US natinal production capacity may even be larger then that
No more birds...
With respect, I believe this problem could easily be fixed with a sound emitter, magnetic field or some other device which has yet been created. Steering birds away from turbines seems less of a problem to overcome than supplying the entire nations energy requirements.
Actually killing birds isn't a concern right now, from wind turbines. At the moment more birds are killed by household cats. Bats however are being killed, and that is a problem. I believe sounds emitters would solve that problem just fine.
Heck, as long as we're installing a circular frame around the fan blades, it's not a huge stretch to just stick a wire grille across the front - that ought to be sufficient to keep birds from trying to fly through.
Pages