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
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- Brooklyn's largest public housing development gets urban farm
- What a grocery store without bees looks like
- 8 astonishing benefits of walking
- Henry Cavill's 'Man of Steel' workout video
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
- Cap'n Crunch defends his honor on Twitter
- Too beautiful to be real? 16 surreal landscapes found on Earth
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Any ideas how all these turbines will affect cloud formation and precipitation? Any ideas at all?
about as much as a couple large trees would...
Any idea how modern levels of carbon emission affects the weather? It's hard to imagine wind turbines will have a significant effect compared to air pollution or cities and highways.
It's good to see a functional model of this enhancement put to use. Change is going to take a combination of technologies, wind, solar, geo thermal, conserving and using energy wisely .. so many steps we could take, and we are too slowly adopting.
No breakthrough, it's just a venturi surrounding a windmill. They've been around for many, many years.
Ok, 2.6 million windturbines would probably take up the area of Wyoming or Montana. Does anyone every look at these "reports" before they are published? Plus these things will work only about 25% of the time. Not a viable source of power at all.
Actually, to fit 2.6 million turbines in Wyoming, there would have to be 1 turbine every 10 meters over the whole state. To fill Montana they would be spaced out every 15 meters. For both Wyoming AND Montana there would be 1 turbine every 24 meters in every direction as far as the eye could see...
You would need about 2200 of these to replace a coal power station. (Based on 600 US coal plants generating 54% of US power).
A coal power station can take up to 3000 acres of space (Gibson Generating Station - Wikipedia).
The wind turbines could be spaces fairly far apart and take up far less space than the coal power stations, not even considering the space taken up by coal mining.
Yeah, right, and the produced energy needs to be transported further, which yields LOSSES! Devil is in the details!
Coal power accounted for 43% in the most recent EIA report.
2200 in 3000 acres? Each of them is only 200 feet apart? Isn't that sort of crowded for a wind farm?
Wind turbines are powering most of Austria and southern Sweden, so they are a viable source of power.
well... no! Austria gets 4% of its annual energy consumption from wind, our main energy source is water.
This is another amazing example of humanity entering into a "comprehensive design revolution" (not a military or social revolution) and when we get behind it and support it fully we will create ten billion billionaires on-board planet Earth within as short a time as ten years. Thank you all you wonderful engineers, scientists and social entrepreneurs.
Sounds like fascinating technology. I wish we could participate in this new breakthrough in the state of Wisconsin, but our governor Scott Walker has made it almost impossible to invest in wind energy. He's very backward and caters his energy decisions to energy special interests who finance his campaigns. We're hoping we can recall the moron but that will take some time. Until then I hope the rest of the world enjoys clean, abundant, green energy.
I wonder where the fallout came from in ice at the Antartcic. I guess no one died because of atomic testing at Maralinga and the nuclear fallout did not effect the east coast of Australia between 1956 & 1959 or Chernobal didn't contaminate the Danish Farm land when that nuclear reactor went on unauthorized holidays,I hear there is some bargain real estate close to the site enough for a large city why is it not used.and why is not Bikini Atoll a tourist destination
Bikini Atoll is a tourist destination. Because of all of the ships that were sank there during post-WWII atomic bomb testing, it has a lot of wrecks to explore for Scuba Divers.
You can visit but can't live on Bikini Atoll. Radiation level still so high.
I find the positive nature of this article refreshing and although we may not be able to depend on wind only, wind combined with solar, hydroelectric and geothermal is more then dependable.
Also, oil gas & coal can be just as unreliable as the wind. Oil rigs blow up, and dry up. And no matter what the debate is focused on: environment, economic, etc, all of these sources will someday run out. Why wait?
Where did the 90mwh price for coal power come from?Your imagination! That isn't even close ! Try 20Mwh. The wind does not blow everyday,you cannot store the electricity. Try presenting the facts not distortions.
Pages