Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Alternative Energy Snapshot - Jan. 2009

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:30am
Thread: 
Environmental Apocalypse
Tags: 
global climate change
Alternative Energy Snapshot

This snapshot will focus on wind, which I am most familiar with and where most of the action is currently happening anyway.

From the Jan. 15 edition of Electric Power Monthly, a publication of the Department of Energy, came the preceding pie chart showing combined "alternative" energy sources at 3.2% of total power generation as of Oct. 2008 (latest available data).

The current goal for renewables is 20% wind energy by 2030, while the Obama-Biden New Energy for America Plan calls for 10% of our electricity coming from (all) renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.

It is important to note that the Obama-Biden plan says "renewables", because that includes hydropower and the pie chart shows that current hydropower is at 6.5% of current generation. That's not good. Adding 6.5% and 3.2% means we are already at 9.7% renewable power generation, so we have already met the Obama goal for 2012! Talk about lowering the bar..... I found a great take-apart of the 2030 plan at this really cool blog that you should read.

So some good news:

"U.S. becomes "Number One" in wind: During the summer of 2008, the U.S. wind industry launched past the 20,000-megawatt installed capacity milestone, achieving in two years what had previously taken two decades (the 10,000-MW mark was reached in 2006). Also this summer, the U.S. passed Germany to become the world leader in wind generation. By the end of September, the U.S. had over 21,000 MW of wind capacity up and running. With additional projects coming on line every week since, the wind industry is on its way to charting another record-shattering year of growth. That 21,000 MW of capacity will generate over 60 billion kWh of electricity in 2009, enough to serve over 5.5 million American homes and eliminating the burning of
30.4 million short tons of coal (enough to fill two 1,000-mile-long coal trains),
91 million barrels of oil per year, or
560 Bcf of natural gas (about 9% of the natural gas used for electricity generation). "

More blogs and sites to read if you are interested in this topic:

theWatt

Windbiz

Windtech International

0
No votes yet

Comments

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

This Seattle PI reader blog post reflects much of the information I am also informally getting. Some wind projects are getting mothballed, some are getting cancelled, but the big players (whatever they may ) have either the cash or increased investor confidence to raise what they need.

Take a look at the alternative alternative, a coal mining machine in Finland:

Submitted by ohio on

I'm sorry. it is a weakness in my character---I like machines to the point where I sometimes look right past the bad ethics of their operators.

That thing looks like the Terminator and becrazed can opener had a drunken weekend in Vegas that included ecstasy and HGH. Only this time what happened in Vegas went to Finland. Let us hope that what happens in Finland stays in Finland.

herbie, do you install any small wind systems? Small as in, big enough power my house? We have five acres, a lot of wind (and not just from me talking), and a site at the top of our property that may be suitable. We're five years from deploying, but I like to start looking early. I've looked at a bunch of manufacturers, but the products are price-y and I just don't know if I believe 'em.

Color me skeptical.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Micro wind projects (personal turbines) aren't practical without a)being able to sell back to the grid, b)an economic method to store the energy, or c) such a consistent source that the previous are not a problem. And yeah, they are expensive. I would personally spend money on a geothermal system first, solar second, but reduce consumption above all.

We only work on the large turbine projects 750kw to 3mw (those are the biggest currently manufactured). Last year we drilled at approximately 700 turbine locations, most are 2mw so that is an average of 1400mw of power. Of course not all were installed, and not all will generate their rated power once installed. The alternative: a typical new coal fired power plant produces plus or minus 500mw. Those 700 turbines would produce similar energy to nearly three coal-fired plants. It's more complicated than that of course, but....

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

talks about wind power issues that were discussed at the Cleveland conference that my daughter was involved in at the beginning of December. Many unresolved issues and hurdles, but it's a start.

Local wind energy advocates feel they are in a race to plant the first turbine in Great Lakes water.
The achievement would mark the region as a clean-energy innovator, not a smokestack laggard, officials say.

But hurdles -- financial, technical, legal and environmental -- loom as the Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force pushes to establish the region as a job-generating epicenter of offshore wind power.

Wind turbines continue to sprout on land across the United States. But the country has yet to see any turbines off its shores, from the saltwater coasts to the freshwater Great Lakes.

Why wind power?

Along with the sun, wind is viewed as an everlasting source of power that can help cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It's also a cleaner source than burning fossil fuels like coal, which generates air pollution and greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, experts say.

President Bush set a goal for wind power to supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030. That would require more than 290 gigawatts of new wind power -- tens of thousands of new wind turbines -- to come online over the next 22 years, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Energy.

That's a big jump. Wind power supplies less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity now. It remains a high-cost source of electricity, though bigger and better turbine design will bring costs down.

The nation faces multibillion-dollar costs to link wind power with the electrical transmission system, experts say. And the growth of wind turbines will draw lots of environmental and wildlife concern. They are not uncommon in Europe, where 26 offshore wind farms help meet power demands for five countries.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Offshore wind is more consistent and higher energy for the same wind speed (less turbulent), as well as having no property rights to pay for, and offer less line loss since they can be cited closer to population centers (ex. Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Toronto) however, designing, installing and maintaining the turbines (and power transmission) is more expensive by an order of magnitude. IOW, not currently economically feasible.
Onshore sources would have to become very expensive to warrant offshore installations. With a feasibility cap of about 25% of energy production, offshore probably isn't going to be required.

It all depends on the grid....

Submitted by ohio on

Without efficient storage, what's the use? I like the idea of wind power generating electricity because maybe then I won't cower in my bed during windstorms, but smile dreamily as I calculate how many watts each gust is producing.

(We looked at geothermal and hoowee, $15,000 for the smallest system available and that didn't include labor. Ouchie McOuchalot. We settled on solar thermal for DHW and will add PV panels as we go---maybe.)

I may use mechanical wind energy to pump water from the rainwater cistern to the trees, vineyard, and gardens, but I will tackle that when other stuff isn't kicking my ass.

Submitted by hipparchia on

o/t, but i'm always glad to find someone who shares my fetishes.

Submitted by ohio on

I am going to touch my left boob. If you feel something, you know, there, then you are clearly me. Okay? 3...2...1...

Oh, wait. You're smarter than me. Or I'm dumber than you. I can tell the difference between us that way.

And I saw Big Muskie. And I've been to southeastern Ohio (yes, yes, ah the irony) and I even spent time in Zanesville. Heaps of coalmining slag littered the area---it was one of the ugliest places I have ever been and not just because it was the 1970s.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i'm the one who likes scaffolding, remember? probably this makes us evil twins, though.

i've been to ohio too. toledo and youngstown and driving through the farm country part. now that i think i about it, i've spent a lot of time driving through all the midwest farm country.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

From SolveClimate:

"Pickens was the big draw thanks to tens of millions of dollars he's been pouring into a campaign promoting -- what else -- the Pickens Plan. It's his grand energy plan and it goes like this:

Build lots of wind farms to generate electricity.
Then stop using natural gas to generate electricity.
Use that natural gas to power vehicles instead.
Get off foreign oil.
It's green. It's energy independent. And it's all-American. Too bad, as you'll see below, it's a dumb way to go about solving energy problems and it will never happen. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to go -- only they don't enrich Pickens.

To prove his green bona fides and sell his plan to the public, Pickens announced he was building the biggest wind farm in the world in Texas. (And we fell for it. Not only once, but twice.) "

Read the whole thing, that post is awesome.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

... reminds me of Howl's Moving Castle, except turned evil. Ick.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

From the LA Times,
'Green' energy plan in Obama stimulus may be losing steam.

"Reporting from Washington -- Barack Obama portrays his stimulus plan as a quick jolt for the ailing economy and a "down payment" on his priorities as president. But those goals appear to be colliding in at least one key area: energy independence.

The stimulus package increasingly appears unlikely to include major investments in "green infrastructure" -- the wires and rails that could deliver renewable energy to Americans' homes and help end the nation's addiction to oil -- according to alternative-energy advocates who are discussing the plans with the Obama transition team."

Like I said, not good.

Update: h/t solveclimate

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

One of the problems we're having with windmills out here in CA is deaths of birds, mainly raptors, and also bats by the thousands, and we are apparently not the only ones. While every energy source will have some tradeoffs, it is more than a little disconcerting to have spent enormous energy and time to beat back things like DDT and other pesticides so we could build up decimated raptor and bat populations only to have the next generation of eco-friendly energy production start killing them off again.

What do you know about the newer vertical wind turbine designs with regard to bird and bat kills? They appear to me more benign.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

I realize that is a huge concern, and a different wind turbine configuration is certainly something that should be explored.

Meanwhile, chemicals are continuing to kill the planet.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

There is a world of difference between those old, small, inefficient turbines that spin very fast and the new, large, highly efficient turbines that spin (comparatively) slowly.

I did a little math on the what they provided in that article. Apparently there are about 5000 turbines that generate 100kw, that equals 500000kw or 500mw. Those could/should be replaced by the equivalent in new turbines. New turbines generate 2-3mw (1mw machines are rarely installed anymore, the main cost is in construction and site prep, not the turbine itself). If they used 2mw turbines they could replace those 5000 turbines with 250 turbines, if they used 3mw turbines they would only need 165 turbines. The 3mw turbines are also cheaper in overall installation, I'm guessing here (but it's an educated guess), but it takes around $3M to install a 3mw turbine, so 165 turbines at 3 million is around $500M. Not cheap, but their scare number of 1 billion is way off, even if you add for decommisioning the old turbines.

These would also be brand new machines with a longer life-expectancy, and most developers would kill for a prime wind location like this one. The 165 turbines could easily be placed in areas that mitigate bird kills.

There are reportedly some issues with bats and birds being struck by turbines, but steps are being taken in the right direction.

h/t to the windpower law blog for the info.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

It's not yet ready for primetime, but the University of Michigan, up here, is testing a new water technology that sounds like it could be promising:

Whirligigs of illuminated particles form as the water pours over and under the cylinder in rhythmic patterns.

It looks simple, but it's revolutionary. This is VIVACE, a device to harness energy in slow-moving water currents across the globe and turn it into electricity.

VIVACE, which mimics the way fish swim in currents, is to debut next year in the Detroit River, powering the light for a new wharf between Hart Plaza and the Renaissance Center.

"Everybody is excited by this," said Mike Bernitsas, director of the Marine Renewable Energy Laboratory at the University of Michigan and inventor of the device.

It's one of a handful of new techniques -- the first in more than 100 years -- to use water to create clean, renewable energy. Since late November, the device has been filmed by Canada's Discovery Channel and discussed in science blogs, journals and the British Sunday Telegraph.

Unlike water-driven mills, turbines or dams, VIVACE doesn't require fast-moving water -- most streams on the globe are slow-moving -- and doesn't harm the environment.

Mas:

Bernitsas said he is thinking small so far, but someday an array of 1,000 cylinders offshore could produce the same energy as a large nuclear plant. A smaller grouping, as big around as a running track and as tall as a two-story building, could power 1,000 homes.

Y mas:

What Bernitsas envisions is groups of cylinders in frames on the ocean bed or in streams, perpendicular to currents. As the water flow hits the cylinders, it creates vortices that cause the cylinders to move up and down. That energy drives generators to make electricity, which goes through cables to the electrical grid on land. The size, number and placement of the cylinders depends on the body of water.

In the Detroit River, he plans 21 cylinders, each about 10 inches in diameter and 16 feet long, suspended in frames midriver on the U.S. side, which will create 3 kilowatts of energy around the clock to power lights on the dock.

This electricity is clean, infinitely renewable -- "as long as the sun, the Earth and the moon move as they do now," he jokes -- and doesn't harm the environment.

The cylinders will be far enough apart that fish can swim through them and deep enough to avoid ships, boats and fishing lines.

"It's a really creative project," said John Kerr, director of economic development for the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority.

VIVACE's electricity will be cheaper to produce than solar or wind energy -- at 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- and cheaper than coal plants if controlling their carbon emissions is accounted for, he said, because the devices are simple and require little maintenance.

The cylinders should go into the Detroit River within 12 to 14 months, followed by further testing.

Bernitsas said he can't jump up and down until then, since challenges remain.

"Once it's in the Detroit River, I'll be screaming, 'Eureka!' " he said.

You all keep an eye on this.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

this is probably a dumb question, but is there any potential for urban wind power. Lots of high rise buildings have flat roofs that might be suitable for turbines, and the urban landscape creates numerous 'wind tunnels' that provide a steady source of wind on low and mid-rise buildings found among skyscrapers.

Is there a good reason why this can't be done?

Submitted by jawbone on

wind, vegetation to absorb rain water and lessen run-off, etc. Not all need be exclusive. And private open areas, of course....

Heard WNYC discussion sometime this past year that if all the roof tops in NYC which could be used for solar collection were used, NYC would supply clean electricity for not only the five boroughs, but for many miles out into the surrounding suboonia.

It was a cheering thought. And that's using the level of efficiency currently available in solar panels, in the Northeast with its more cloudy weather. If the Obama administration were to make greener energy a national security issue, imagine what could be accomplished!

Hope!

Turlock