The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Wind program arm just released a report (PDF, 4 MB) on the prospect of wind power generating 20% of U.S. electricity by the year 2030. News agencies have reported on this result, though typically only by reading the official press release. USA Today did do some additional research and their coverage accurately reflects both the intention and the results of the DOE report. In the following discussion I will suggest that you thumb through the report by highlighting a few items I found interesting. If wind power is going to produce such a significant portion of U.S. electricity, then there is a lot of difficult work to do (and don’t get discouraged if it fails).
The report is not a prediction that wind energy will be our savior. It begins by stating that President Bush motivated an improvement in the nation’s energy diversity. Give the DOE credit for taking the Bush Administration’s Energy Agenda and putting some real numbers behind it. Reading through this 248 page report will get you completely up to date in terms of the steps necessary for wind power to generate as much as 20% of all U.S. electricity by the year 2030. It’s not an easy climb, however, so it is important that the public have realistic expectations to avoid becoming disenchanted with wind power if it ends up costing more than this report suggests.
Points of Interest
Page numbers given here are from the report itself. The corresponding page number of the PDF is 20 greater, e.g., for page number 33 cited below, you can find the referenced page as 53 in your PDF viewer.
- Page 16: Power plants use more water than agriculture. There may be a technical issue because power plants withdraw more water than agriculture, but they might return enough of it that they actually consume less water than agriculture. Either way, wind farms use much less water than other types of power plants (this is an area in which nuclear loses dramatically) and could be developed to save 450 billion gallons of water annually. The southwest should consider that a huge benefit of wind power.
- Page 31: There is a physical limit to the energy efficiency of a wind turbine. Betz’ limit is that at most, 59% of the energy associated with a free stream can be extracted. Basically, if you remove too much of the flowing fluid’s energy (air is a fluid here), then it stops in its tracks and prevents any more fluid from passing through. If no more fluid passes through, then no more energy can be extracted. If that is the bad news, then the good news is that “Modern utility-scale wind turbines generally extract about 50% of the energy in this stream below the rated wind speed”.
- Page 32, Figure 2-8: A great plot that shows the wind speeds at which a turbine will turn itself on, reach its maximum efficiency, and turn itself off to avoid damage.
- Page 34, Figure 2-9: The cost of operation and maintenance versus the age of the equipment for very large wind harvesting facilities (i.e., generation greater than 5 MW). There are large error bars for the equipment that was installed up to 6 years ago. For example, wind power that was completely installed four years ago has an operating and maintenance cost with a standard deviation of ± 75%! This means that such a facility cannot accurately predict their operating costs based on other comparable sites. There are very few qualifying sites, however, so the statistics are not so good in the first place. The 75% standard deviation is calculated after reviewing only 17 facilities. Maybe one of them was just horribly mismanaged.
- Page 36, Figure 2-10: Good luck reading the axes on this figure. Did someone just scan it from a Whole Foods bag?
- Chapter 2: It’s odd that there is so much information in the section on technology improvements because the turbines already operate at very high efficiency (see page 31 reference above). Still, improvements in efficiency also include electricity transport so we should push for continued development.
- Page 47, Figure 2-16: This figure shows blade size versus time along with markers for the construction of facilities to test the blades. There are no facilities in the U.S. that can test blades longer than 50 m, though blades larger than this are becoming standard for the large scale wind farms in development. These tests are very important, but the report states that manufacturers cannot afford to each have their own facility. Hopefully, government support of such an infrastructure will become part of the plan. This does not sound like something that is getting much coverage in the present discussion.
- Page 47: Here is a funny quote, “Because blades are approaching sizes of half the length of a football field and can weigh more than a 12.2-m yacht, they are very difficult and expensive to transport on major highways.” The football field comparison is good, but how many people have a concept of the weight of a 12.2 m yacht?
- Chapter 3: Do we have the resources to implement 20% electricity generation by wind? We might not have enough fiberglass (page 72), “For example, the glass fiber requirements would be about half the level used domestically for roofing shingles (which is currently the largest consumer of fiberglass) and about double the amount now used in boat building.” Even worse, we might not have enough qualified people (page 73), “In a report published by the National Science and Technology Counsel (NTSC) in 2000, the percentage of 22-year-olds earning degrees in science and engineering will continue to drop in the next 40 years”.
- Page 80, Figure 4-2: Qualitative plotting of the grid load over multiple timescales. On the timescale of days the load is fairly regular. As to be expected, the load fluctuates more rapidly over the course of minutes.
- Page 84, Figure 4-6: This is a plot of voltage control features at a wind farm currently in operation by General Electric. Impossible to read if printed out. The PDF view is not much better.
- Page 89, Table 4-3: This table displays the “capacity factor” of midwest energy production between June 2005 and May 2006, which is the percentage of energy actually produced by the method (out of the total energy possible). Nuclear produces the best by putting out 75% of the total it is capable of producing. Wind hits 30%, but the point of this table is to show that all energy sources are needed to ensure that enough electricity is generated. Nuclear energy is getting more positive press and will hopefully continue to develop right along with wind.
- Offshore wind technology is not as advanced as that for land based wind farms. This might turn out to be an expensive development that will slow the progress of wind power collection.
- Page 106: Not in my backyard! The public might be one of the problems that prevents wind energy from reaching the 20% point. “About 10% to 25% of proposed wind energy projects are not built—or are significantly delayed—because of environmental concerns. Although public support for wind energy is generally strong, this attitude does not always translate into early support for local projects.” One of the more popular examples of this involves a U.S. Senator trying to prevent the building of a wind farm in his favored sailing seas.
- Page 112, Figure 5-2: Wind turbines kill fewer birds than house cats. An environmental argument against wind power (I’ve heard it, but do not have a reference handy) is that the farms kill too many birds. If we outlaw house cats, then this might become a valid argument.
Since this is also a physics issue I have cross-posted it here.
No related posts.
David Pace | Posted in 
Subscribe to Feed
May 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Thanks for posting this, Dave, and for pointing out that it is important for people not to get discouraged. I think we so often look for immediate results, or results within one administration for example and when we do not see things make a total turn around we throw our hands up. Change is slow and progress is gradual. Thank you for the info, my fingers are crossed for wind power and I will be patient as hard as that is. ;c)
May 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Thanks, Tracy. Some of the media coverage made it sound like the report was a prediction of future wind power development. In truth, the report highlights just how much of a challenge it will be to add significant wind power collection. I was really surprised about the water savings so I hope that gets more attention as the public chooses which energy developments to support.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Want 20 Percent Wind Power by 2030, Get to Work! | nerdd.net…
\r\nA review of the U.S. Dept. of Energy\’s report concerning the development of wind power to produ…
May 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
The statement about the windmills killing fewer birds than house cats is misleading. Windmills kill eagles, hawks and falcons which are at the top of the food chain and exist in much fewer numbers than the small birds killed by house cats. For example, in Oregon there are ~134 nesting pairs of peregrine falcons. A wind farm killing ~4000 eagles, hawks, and falcons per year has a profound effect on the population. Now multiply that by thousands of new wind farms. It is an environmental disaster waiting to happen and definitely not green.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
thank you for the post. It was a great read. It is striking that along with the logistical challenges faced battling fossil fuel interests, nuclear interests, and politicians w/ their special interests is necessary in order to implment necessary technologies to accomodate the growing need for electricity generation.
If the DEP is worried about birds, it should be utilizing the massive leisure bird watching groups in the USA to track migratory birds and build wind farms out of their paths. simple solutions that become complex when the federal beuracracy becomes involved. Are there any artiles about expansion of wind in CA? Arnold is progressive when it comes to common sense initiatives like wind power.
Additionally, I have family in international shipping and wind is a booming industry world wide. there are logistical problems moving towers and blades due to their light weight and the amount of space needed to move large quantities. BUT windmills cannot be moved fast enough.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
issue -
here and many other places -
BIG wind, BIG solar, etc are nice, and have a place in the overall scheme of the power grid. However – small wind, small solar (residential level) can and SHOUD comprise a larger portion of this energy source.
a 1kw solar panel set on every building, and/or a 1 kw wind turbine for every building will produce more power, locally, and extract a greater % of overall available energy from these sources.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
[...] For an interesting and funny assessment on reading the DOE report in full, David Pace points you (by chapter and page) to some key items of interest in his “Want 20 Percent Wind Power by 2030, Get to Work!” available here. [...]
May 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Thanks for this analysis – it seems to be basically neutral except for the illogical support of nuclear energy. Why encourage use of dangerous technology that will leave a legacy of superfund sites for future generations? Besides this is failed technology. We’ve had decades of research but still have no answer to waste and the industry cannot stand on it’s own without government support. We need to concentrate on conservation and sustainable energy instead.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Can’t deal with the waste of nuclear? Are you kidding? It’s only made complicated by people like Ben Pickett.. In this case the concern is the radiation exposure when containment breaks down in 10,000+ years. We can’t predict where technology will be in 20 years much less 10,000.
Get real.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Having studied nuclear engineering in college, I have been well indoctrinated that nuclear energy is good. But I do agree that:
Yes, nuclear power plants do use a lot of water and cause thermal pollution when the cooling water is pumped back into the environment.
Yes, nuclear power plants do have spent fuels (other lower level waste due to activation products are properly disposed of in specific radioactive waste sites) that presently are being stored in the nuclear power plant facilities, but as soon as Yucca Mountain is opened, it will resolve some issues. (Details on why Yucca Mountain is a good area to put spent fuels/old reactor cores takes too long to explain. Also these spent fuels could be utilized further if our government would allow reprocessing. For those who want to argue nuclear power is not safe should look up how many deaths in the US are related to nuclear power plants and how many are related to fossil fuel plants. I believe there is only a few (I want to say one) documented death due to an incident in a nuclear facility back in the 50s.)
But on the plus side of things:
Nuclear energy does not have carbon emissions like coal power plants, and current technologies are further improving designs which minimize risk and increase efficiency. This technology works and can provide a base load of electricity to meet this country’s energy needs. Hell, if the French can use 90% nuclear power and not have any problems .. why can’t we?
However I do agree with a comment above that hopes to utilize solar and wind electricity production on an individual basis. I think that coupled with efficient battery storage capabilities would work quite well. But the technology is not close to being cost effective (or at least not to my knowledge) there needs to be an alternative but short term solution to reducing green house gas production which means stop using fossil fuel power plants and switch to something else. Of course in my book that something else would be nuclear, but that is just my opinion.
Oh and on the topic of superfund sites. Superfund sites include improper chemical/toxic substances disposal as well. Should we just stop using chemicals? Have we found a “perfect” way of disposing of said chemicals/toxic stuff? The superfund sites were a result of lack of regulation on radioactive waste disposal and crazy individuals who think they can dispose of radioactive waste on their own. Todays regulations would slam a company hard with fines and make them pay for most if not all of the clean up if radioactive waste were improperly disposed.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:53 am
[...] and will save billions of gallons of water for the southwest) and suggests we work harder to getread more | digg [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am
What I don’t understand:
First this is great news. Anything environmentally friendly is better than what we have now. But doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways. For example, all the talk about energy of the electro magnetic field (I have no degree in nuclear science of electro magnetics), but what I do know is it’s working for my car. If it’s working for my car, why shouldn’t it work anywhere else? It should be able to power the whole world, and why is everybody silent about it? Obviously it’s no secret because according to this site there are over 50 patents to it. Is it the big oil companies suppressing this? I don’t know. You can read more about it on http://www.SaveGasSaveEarth.com
Know what? May be the technology is so simple that may be it will be really dangerous if this goes into the hands of terrorists, and that’s why the world wants to suppress this, but that sounds really stupid!
May 31st, 2008 at 7:05 am
Chuck:
I know you mean well and your enthusiasm is wonderful, but the hydrogen injection systems for cars that your site points to is a dead end. It doesn’t do anything significant for gas mileage–just because something is *patented* doesn’t mean it’s of particular value. There is no “suppression” of this technology–frankly, big companies just aren’t that organized.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
[...] read more | digg story [...]