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
- What causes tornadoes?
- Military dog comes home from Iraq traumatized
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- New psychiatric manual stirs controversy
- Indian man single-handedly plants a 1,360-acre forest
- How space tourism could help save planet Earth
- 15 houseplants to improve indoor air quality
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
this certainly isn't anything new-- I used to live within 5 miles of a nuke plant but the power went to another state (they got better rates for it)-- we got the extra cost and the danger while someone else got the electric!
Indian tribes didn't get any electric for having their lands contaminated from mining uranium ore-- just high cancer rates.
Just think that most of all the power generated by the Hoover Dam goes to the LA area. What we need is power that is generated to supply the local area and any surplus energy then be feed onto the national grid.
Fantastic if this is real. Here is an interesting story as well.
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2011/05/04/n_co_vestas_ceo.cnnmoney/
"....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...."
one forth the land area of Alaska? I want to see you get this past the enviromentalist loonies. Using that much land?
IDK if anyone else noticed but 170,000 square miles happens to be larger than THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA! Every number based off of the calculations of this proposed wind farm is completely unrealistic.
Relative size spread throughout the United States... not an actual 1/4 portion of Alaska...
As one of those environmentalist loonies - I'd vote for it; it is a non-lethal source of energy.
It is better and safer ,may be in addition to getting power from neuclear sources
senior translator, researcher , negotiater and blogger
salah m kamel
The only problem, wind technology relies on wind... which means when no wind, no power. So we need something reliable, predictable, don't we? I suppose everyone should have a diesel generator as backup.
I don't understand how people can say things like this with such massive confidence. Think! Your city likely doesn't have its own power plant NOW because our reactors, etc are distributed all across the country.
not if they were tied into a grid-- wind will be blowing somewhere!
traditional plants also go down for maintenance and repairs-- we just pull from other sources on the grid.
The main thing is to reduce the amount of electric we use (we waste about 40%, we should start there). All answers make more sense if the amount needed is reduced.
Then you don't just rely on wind alone. You have to combine your resources. Solar and wind are good choices. Producing energy from a gas or diesel generator is not cost effective for the average home owner, even if it is only done on a short term basis.
You are spoiled. If you go back 70 years in the US, then a windmill was on every farm. There was a big watering tank to pump into when the wind blew. Normally this happens at early morning and during afternoon. When no wind, no water, so you have to have a big tank to handle the cattle in case of no wind for a day or so.
Get used to "outages" if you do not have a diesel. You plan your stuff around when the power is there.
but this isnt 70 years ago. we are looking for ways to better the lives of everyone all the time. loot at all the miserable people 70 years ago too, granted we still have poor and down trodden but look at the difference in the average persons life now compared to then.
Greenland and Iceland were named so to confuse travelers, or referred to as such by confused cartographers....Greenland WAS NOT a green pasture island 1200 years ago...you are just stupid.
Just to clarify, "Greenland" should actually be called Iceland and vice versa. The Vikings named them such to confuse and avoid other raiders from going to their actually place of habitation, Iceland. So in short Greenland is Icey and Iceland is green. Trust me, it sounds dumb but it is true, look it up.
Erik named it Iceland, not to confuse invaders, but to confuse potential settlers...He was trying to attract people. There are several accounts of Erik saying this....You are just stupid also, read a book.
OOps, relpied to wrong post....gya....the internets!
^^^^ That is correct... The misinformation out there is incredible!!
Pages