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
- Man tattoos puppy, faces backlash
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- The mystery of Devil's Kettle Falls
- Tornado survivor finds dog during live TV interview
- The squirrel that wears many hats
- What causes tornadoes?
- 7 ways to ensure you sleep more soundly
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- Olive oil and nuts make you smarter, study finds
- 'Gay' dog rescued from Tenn. animal shelter
From our sponsor
Follow us:
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
When you write "Let's say we developed...roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska" do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? Do you not realize those U.S. maps with Alaska and Hawaii in the corner are out of scale?
it is true, though, that they are trying to be misleading by saying it's '1/4th the size of alaska', when they could easily have just says 'an area the size of california', which more people would be able to visualize because it is a more well-known state and there are no fractions to muddy their understanding.
and because i'm sure people will say 'what kind of idiot can't understand simple fractions?': take a look at a map of alaska. now cut it into perfect 4ths. go ahead, take your time.
Do you mean to tell me that Alask is not a large island off the coast of Baja Mexico????
The problem with this design is that it does not allow farmers to grow crops under the footprint. Current turbine designs allow 95% of the land to be repurposed for things like agriculture.. If you fully develop THESE turbines, you are going to have a lot of hungry people.
the turbines would be spread out over many locations .on another point have you seen the gigantic size of the Yallourn open cut in Victoria,.one of the hidden expenses in coal extraction.imagine the power out put of wind turbines installed to that scale
Could be done probably for less than we put into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dang, I worked this up three years ago with schematics, filed them until I could rebuild my burnt down house. I just want to cry. Of course it is freaking cheaper
How dependable is this power source when the wind doesn't blow? We still need base power from traditional sources for those -30 degree nights when stationary artic cold fronts settle in across North America.
Why don't most people realize the batteries are made from toxic chemicals. The hazard exists throughout the battery life cycle from mining the ore to disposing of the caustic electrolyte and spent materials at the end.
There is no free ride!
EXCEPT consume less!
Get rid of your giant screen HDTV energy hog with it's ridiculous 16:9 aspect ratio and return to 4:3, a whopping 25% power savings based on keeping the vertical height of the actor the same.
The technology for these solutions is available and straight-forward to implement... but it's still WAY more expensive to store energy than to produce it with coal.
I think wind and solar are great compliments to baseload power plants... But maybe we should focus some research dollars on reusing carbon from a coal power plant for something like lowering the cost to use as a food source for algae.
important to recognize that - wind IS cheaper than nuclear NOW.
Not when you take purchasing an area the size of Texas into account. Not to mention production and maintenance costs on 2 million+ windmills.
Yes, wind is still cheaper. Nuclear provides only 8.5% of energy in the U.S. That could easily be replaced with wind turbines. It costs billions to build a nuclear power plant, billions to decommission one, and billions to store nuclear waste.
I guess there is no operating expenses in a coal powered generator ,The coal comes out of the ground by itself and the thing keeps rotating perpetually and the emissions, just pump them into the air for some one else to worry about.yea very little cost ,sounds just like wind generation.
one can only hope it works.. but why wait to next year.. do it now
Children in Japan have to wear radiation detectors to school because of the nuclear plant meltdowns! They were fed beef with radiation in it. They are detecting radiation in Japanese children's urine. It's so sad. www.enenews.com
"Fukushima children test positive for internal radiation exposure"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/fukushima-children-radiation...
And...what? Children have been warned not to eat apples they collect on Halloween for years, despite there never, ever having been a case of apples or other fruit being tampered with. And it is common to see Japanese people wearing painter masks in public places, believing they protects against disease (they don't). Other examples of foolish public overreaction to imaginary dangers abound, from fear of witches to Alar-induced panic.
I'd prefer not to let hysteria rule my life.
You are comparing apples to internal radiation in the Japanese children from nuclear plant meltdowns? That is so insensitive.
Pages