Wind power in 2024 is not exactly dominating discussions this week, but the Times had an interesting story about a fascinating study commissioned for the Energy Department.
The study encompassed wind power in the Eastern Grid, which runs roughly from the Eastern Seaboard to Montana/Louisiana. Four scenarios were contemplated:
• Scenario 1, 20% penetration – High Capacity Factor, Onshore: Utilizes high-quality wind resources in the Great Plains, with other development in the eastern United States where good wind resources exist.
• Scenario 2, 20% penetration – Hybrid with Offshore: Some wind generation in the Great Plains is moved east. Some East Coast offshore development is included.
• Scenario 3, 20% penetration – Local with Aggressive Offshore: More wind generation is moved east toward load centers, necessitating broader use of offshore resources. The offshore wind assumptions represent an uppermost limit of what could be developed by 2024 under an aggressive technology-push scenario.
• Scenario 4, 30% penetration – Aggressive On- and Offshore: Meeting the 30% energy penetration level uses a substantial amount of the higher quality wind resource in the NREL database. A large amount of offshore generation is needed to reach the target energy level.
Particularly in the Great Plains it is quicker to build wind farms than revamp the grid, so there would be a real benefit from some coordinated planning here. From the Times:
That expansion [of the grid] would require spending about $93 billion in today’s dollars, according to David Corbus, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which supervised the study. He said that sum, large as it is on its face, was “really, really small compared to other major costs” in the power system.
A bigger obstacle is how to overcome a political impasse over building power lines, and how to find, and finance, sites for 10 times more generating capacity. The study did not address those questions.
The study used wind data at different sites for every ten minutes from 2004 to 2006. Unsurprisingly, geographic diversification of wind farms somewhat mitigated the base load problem.
I am concerned about the impact these wind diversion machines will have on the climate.
Posted by: Victor | January 22, 2010 at 11:11 AM
The study didn't address the question of how to find, and finance, sites for 10 times more generating capacity" and that's a good thing because had it, the cost and time to bring on line would have been exponentially higher and the notion seen as far more impractical than the model shows it to be.
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM
OT:
Uh-oh, Ann.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM
MO morning after Mass vote
yikes!
Posted by: windansea | January 22, 2010 at 11:36 AM
The NIMBY's will be out in force.
I just read in my hometown (Southampton Press) paper that a family there up near Shinnecock Hills wants to put a small wind turbine on their house and can not getting planning permission. Yet antique windmills from the early settler days dot the landscape. Also, the Hamptons is now chic-liberal and very leftish. Which correlates to HELL NO NIMBYISM. Reminiscent of Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard where they tried the same thing but the Kennedy's knocked it down.
Do as I say not as I pontificate.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM
How many nukes could be built for the cost of that 20-30% penetration by wind?
You could build about ten of them just for the quoted cost of changing the grid to accomodate the windmills.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM
If the plan requires a peak generating capacity 10 times higher than we currently have JUST TO OVERCOME THE FICKLENESS OF THE WIND, why not just build nukes to reach, say, 5 times the current capacity?
Imagine how cheap power would be if the BASELINE capacity was 5 times higher. Heck, we could rotate out a tenth of our capacity at a time for maintenance and never notice it!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 22, 2010 at 12:08 PM
That photo of FLOTUS reminds me of the salt vampire from Star Trek.
Posted by: boris | January 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Well, this is OT but mistresses just aren't behaving as they used to.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583653,00.html
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM
I have to agree with the NIMBY's on these windpower monstrosities. These aren't quaint old windmills. These are tens of thousands of huge, ugly, imposing and noisy machinations polluting the landscape.
I loved bashing the Kennedy's over their anti-wind hypocrisy, but only because they were so two-faced about it. Those things would have looked ugly off the coast.
I don't object to small private wind projects on personal property, but public mega-wind is a no-go.
If anyone is serious about energy, you must build nukes. No way around it and if you are not pushing nukes you are just wasting everyone's time.
Posted by: Les Nessman | January 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM
The Cape Wind project proposal is for 130 turbines 300 feet high and no closer to any shoreline than 4 miles.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Wind power hasn't the energy density to be useful for anything but localized applications. The erratic nature of the winds make windmills useful only to drive utility load managers nuts. Victor has a point, that any so-called 'sustainable' energy source from the wind, the water and the sun will necessarily pervert the globe's natural climate regulating mechanisms, and that the value of the energy therefrom derived must be less than the damages caused by so perverting. However, there is a vast amount of energy in the wind, and it would take massive incursions to demonstrate anything but a regional effect on climate. We haven't even mentioned birds, yet, but I will mention the subsonic noise these monsters make as a health risk.
Windpower has only succeeded so far with mandates and subsidies, and European applications are suffering the predicted failings. Companies that used to install in Europe have fled there now, and are invading our shores because of a more favorable regulatory climate. For now.
These aren't useful energy sources; they are wind-powered boondoggles. And T. Boone, the Swiftie Hero and Green Devourer, has halved his order of windmills, and is planning to install them in Minnesota and California instead of Texas.
================================
Posted by: A journalist in England has called boutique applications of small windmills as 'eco-bling'. | January 22, 2010 at 01:16 PM
The municipal utility in my county seat, Willmar, Minnesota, put up two giant wind turbines on the hilltop where the new high school was built. They have had huge problems with them. I hardly ever see both turning, and sometimes neither, when the wind is strong. There are excuses about not getting the right equipment, or faulty parts. Even with both turbines functioning, they are only projected to supply three percent of the power for the small city. I am not impressed. I'm moving to Alaska, off the grid, and I will have no choice but to put up a small wind turbine. Color me green, as in ill at ease, not as in tree hugger.
Posted by: mefolkes | January 22, 2010 at 01:30 PM
"and it would take massive incursions to demonstrate anything but a regional effect on climate"
20- 30% penetration would be a fairly substantial amount of energy. YOu may be fairly certain it would have minimal effect but in reality we just do not know what would happen.
The internal combustion engine seemed like a great alternative to the smell and dust from horse manure. Now millions of cars later maybe not so much.
One thing the the global warming fiasco should have driven home is that the earth's climate is beyond our ability to model and understand at present. predictions on how much eneryg we can extract from our atmosphere without causing major alterations in climate ar as baseless as predictions of how much CO2 affects it. A regoinal drought over tha midwest would have a major affect on our food supply. We do not know what the unintended consequences could for widspread use of wind or solar power.
Posted by: abadman | January 22, 2010 at 01:43 PM
I can't disagree, abm.
======================
Posted by: IPCC science is settled; it's just not correct. | January 22, 2010 at 01:53 PM
Wamista Smack Down with a British Accent
Posted by: glasater | January 22, 2010 at 02:10 PM
Our energy policy and the energy mix ought to be influenced by science.
For example, there is a scientific consensus regarding how to safely store nuclear waste. So, the debate is over on that issue.
Wind farms on the other hand seem to kill a lot of flying creatures. Study of the environmental impact of these devices is incomplete.
Large scale solar projects, likewise have unknown impacts on the environment.
Posted by: MikeS | January 22, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Last year on his pre-inaugural drive from IL to DC, Obama had a rally in OH at a wind turbine factory. Today, he's back in OH at a wind turbine factory...with TOTUS in tow...talking endlessly about all he's done while claiming "It's not about me." Rush is playing excepts and giving brilliant commentary, and wondering if Obama is losing it. Listening to Obama lie and lie and lie in his scolding preacher voice, I wonder too.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 22, 2010 at 02:57 PM
'ClimateGate Analysis', by John P. Costella, from the Science and Public Policy Institute, is worth a read.
====================================
Posted by: 160 pages long, but there is a precis at Watts Up. | January 22, 2010 at 03:46 PM
Wind and nuclear are not strictly substitutes. In the midwest you can site a turbine farm next to a nuclear plant and then keep the reactors shut down from Oct-May. You get the reliability of nuclear for 1/3 the waste that way.
Posted by: cathyf | January 22, 2010 at 06:02 PM
Posted by: cathyf | January 22, 2010 at 06:10 PM
Wind turbines worked good to pump water in places without electricity. Also, wind generators are economical as fuel saving supplement to diesel and natural gas powered generators in localities not connected to the grid. There are some such places in Alaska, for example.
As substitute to baseload wind is not scaleable. For average US regional grid, wind electricity will destabilize the grid beginning with 5% of generation. Take a look at graph under the LUN? How you can stabilize grid with jerks of power like that?
Denmark managed to supply about 20% of electricity by wind (half of it off-peak when electricity is cheap, and no less than quarter at night when it is useless; currently Denmark fines wind farms who feed electricity at night), but only because they feed huge German market and use highly maneuverable hydro from Scandinavia. US does not have such advantage.
Posted by: AL | January 22, 2010 at 07:39 PM
Surely some sort of endangered toad will be hurt/dislocated/frightened by all of these spinning blades.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 22, 2010 at 08:07 PM
absolutamente..and somehow a district court judge in San Francisco will determine he has jurisdiction to grant relief.
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2010 at 08:10 PM
actually, they are a threat to turkey vultures, Soy....very messy....
Posted by: matt | January 22, 2010 at 08:55 PM
Q: Absent government subsidies how many power generating windmills are there on earth?
A: 0
Q: Combined IQ of everyone involved in the Dept. of Energy study?
A: 0
Posted by: JAY | January 22, 2010 at 09:08 PM
Yes, let's spend 90 billion on "the grid". Let's remember, it's a government project, so let's say we spend 200 billion on "the grid".
What's it going to cost to maintain it? What are the ramifications when we get an inch of ice, and a sizable part of "the grid" that we now rely on, goes down, possible for a month or more. Two years ago, there were places without power in Nebraska for up to two months. How much excess are you going to have to build into "the grid" to account for that? Look folks, it's not hard, build the generating capacity close to where it's used, then leave facilities for it to be bled off or used to feed other nearby grids if needed. That's what we do now. This "national grid" idea, is just stupid.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 22, 2010 at 09:23 PM
St. Olaf's put up a wind turbine which they use mostly to power electric heat.
Yes but my alma mater, just across the river in Northfield, beat them to it. ;)
Carleton's turbine about breaks even in that the expense to run it washes out the money saved on electricity. Of course, that still makes it green, since it's not consuming fossil fuel energy or polluting or whatever, but it doesn't actually save the college any cash.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 22, 2010 at 09:26 PM
mefolkes, btw, I wish you the best of luck in Alaska! In the meantime, go Vikes. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | January 22, 2010 at 09:39 PM
Also keep in mind that the much vaunted Denmark, has electricity rates of $.33/KWH, and still pays fees and has subsidies on top of that.
How much do you want to pay for electricity?
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 22, 2010 at 09:40 PM
Wind and nuclear are not strictly substitutes. In the midwest you can site a turbine farm next to a nuclear plant and then keep the reactors shut down from Oct-May. You get the reliability of nuclear for 1/3 the waste that way.
Why would you do that? All it does is run up the cost of electricity.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 22, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Thing is, you can't GROW power with wind. All you can do is SUBSTITUTE, when the wind is blowing. You are double building capacity. This is not an formula for economic progress.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 22, 2010 at 09:46 PM
This is about economic stasis, Pofarmer. You know progressives hate progress, they can't understand it any more than they can understand "base load". (This obviously doesn't apply to Cathy.) Progs want to carve up corpses, it's the only thing which brings satisfaction to their utterly pathetic lives.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 22, 2010 at 09:58 PM
Po, run for Congress..You won't even have to pose for a nude centerfold.
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2010 at 10:05 PM
any more than they can understand "base load".
Runners on first and third. DUH!
Posted by: Semanticleo | January 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM
You won't even have to pose for a nude centerfold.
Lucky for you guys.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Porchlight, thanks for the well-wishing on my behalf. It took a stunning decision by an incompetent and vindictive work comp admin law judge appointed by Gov. Ventura which bankrupted me to force me into leaving my native state. I had pledged before that point that they would carry me out of my beloved home on Green Lake stiff as a board and room temperature. But Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska is a wonderful "fallback position".
When Clarice made her crack about "Po" running for Congress and not needing to pose for a nude centerfold, I thought for a moment that she was referring to Porchlight instead of Pofarmer, and my eyebrows arched WAY up.
I am indeed going to be "off the grid" in Alaska. There will never be grid power on the small island near Klawock and Craig. To be honest, it is a boon to me that both federal and state subsidies will help me pay for the wind generator and photovoltaic panels that I will be installing. I would be hard-pressed to maintain a modern lifestyle regarding electrical use within my budget otherwise.
Porchlight, I'm a Norwegian Lutheran, so I'll uphold the reputation of St. Olaf, even though my family had to settle for the less elitist Augsburg and Concordia (Moorhead) colleges. I have to turn up my nose at Carleton because of its association with the late Sen. Wellstone.
I've already issued an invitation to one of our most glorious and glamorous fellow JOM commenters to visit me and my gal in Alaska. It might be a hoot to get a gang of us together up there. King and Dungeness crab, clam chowder, halibut, salmon and shrimp for dinner sound good to anyone?
Posted by: mefolkes | January 23, 2010 at 12:21 AM
Most of the electricity is generated close to consumer. Big grids exchange between regions relatively small amount of electricity. The purpose of big grids is peak and maintenance downtime of big plants leveling. There is not enough copper in the world to construct continental grid which will reliably deliver electricity from where wind is blowing to where it is needed.
Posted by: AL | January 23, 2010 at 03:06 AM
Porchlight, I'm a Norwegian Lutheran, so I'll uphold the reputation of St. Olaf, even though my family had to settle for the less elitist Augsburg and Concordia (Moorhead) colleges. I have to turn up my nose at Carleton because of its association with the late Sen. Wellstone.
Totally understandable, mefolkes. My father's family is from the Fargo-Moorhead area (or Greater Forehead Area as my uncle calls it) and I would be thrilled to send my kids to any of those schools.
Re: Wellstone, I didn't have much interaction with him. I registered for his intro poli sci class in the fall of 1987 as a freshman and then dropped it a week later. As my floormate, who called it Bubbling Emotions 101, said: "He doesn't want to know what you think. He only wants to know what you feel."
It's great to hear you'll be busting out of the blue state blues and heading up to AK. I can't wait to hear how it goes. I hope you'll have internet access...? My husband travels up there for work every now and again and one of these days I'm going to go, too. An Alaskan JOM party sounds like a hoot indeed.
One thing I am curious about is the Alaskan regional accent, specifically Sarah Palin's. I think she sounds Minnesotan - do you?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 23, 2010 at 09:56 AM
Porchlight, I don't know a safe way of exchanging e-mail addresses here. Sara and Clarice know mine. If you are on Facebook, go to the friends list for one of them, and look for a Mark F. to contact me that way.
I lived in Moorhead for five years as a kid. We might know a few people in common. I made the mistake of returning there for college, and I ran into the buzzsaw of Concordia screwing me over in an attempt to protect the reputation of my rowdy, drunken roommate's "prestigious" family.
I'm not sure about Sarah Palin sounding like a Minnesotan. I'm too busy drooling over her images to be concerned with her accent.
Funny story about Wellstone. Thanks.
The island Susan and I are headed to has a topography that allows perfect line-of-sight to the communications satellites, so we will be able to get both TV and internet that way. But we will also have very strong cellular service, and that will allow us to use Verizon for wireless internet if we wish. Ours will be a modern home on the edge of wilderness.
Posted by: mefolkes | January 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM
So glad to know you'll be w/in reach, mefolkes!
I'm on Facebook too - I'll find you there. And Clarice has my email address.
We probably do know folks in common - we visited Detroit Lakes in '92 and my grandmother still knew a bunch of people from Fargo who vacation there. I'm even named after one of those lakes (my dad spent summers there as a kid). :)
It sounds like you guys are moving to a fabulous place. Keep us updated after the move!
Posted by: Porchlight | January 23, 2010 at 03:37 PM
Interesting to find so many Minnesota-connected commenters. My sister is a reporter for the Willmar paper and my Mom is in a nursing home there. We're originally from Redwood Falls, but I've been in Mass. for almost 50 years now.
Posted by: Dave V. | January 23, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Detroit Lakes figures in Steve McIntyre's latest at Climate Audit; 'Hide this after Jim sees it'.
Many off grid, and many specialized applications of wind or solar energy have much validity and can't be sneered at as 'eco-bling'
======================================
Posted by: India's figured out Pachauri, China may have figured out Maurice Strong, the Survivors will figure out James Hansen. | January 24, 2010 at 05:44 PM
We need a grid better resisitant to a Carrington Event.
=================
Posted by: Yikes! | January 24, 2010 at 05:48 PM
So the sun after saving up for some time is getting ready for a big "belch"?
And the "Hide It" post is interesting in that even I can almost understand it:)
Thank you!
Posted by: glasater | January 24, 2010 at 06:39 PM