Pickens Plan -alternative energy

[LowlyPion]

Interesting article on the Wind Power industry in Spain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/

"In fact, wind supplied 10 percent of all Spanish electricity in 2007. On one record day, March 4, 2008, wind gusts sweeping the country provided 28 percent of the country’s total electricity."

 

[mheslep]

...
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
...

Sorry for the trouble, here is a more direct reference:

Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/43025.pdf
Figure 27, shows individual projects and average capacity factor in blue. Midwest 'heartland' projects averaged ~37% w/ a range of 29% to 48%. Note the two projects in Hawaii totalling 41MW averaged ~45%.

 

[mheslep]

Interesting article on the Wind Power industry in Spain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/

"In fact, wind supplied 10 percent of all Spanish electricity in 2007. On one record day, March 4, 2008, wind gusts sweeping the country provided 28 percent of the country’s total electricity."

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

I am less sure about how much was spilled, because there seems to be a heavy emphasis on measuring and predicting energy contribution from the individual wind turbines and if the data from the readings from the wind generators is online as I believe, that could give Spain the ability to follow the progress of weather effects across the country and know that if wind was picking up on the west coast it would arrive in a few hours as contribution on the eastern generators. (A side benefit is that weather modeling now has a new data source for refining models.)

But the variability of wind generation ranges does point out an inherent problem - matching generation with weather predicting and loading. These problems will be of growing concern as the % contribution rises.

 

[dlgoff]

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

Well, I'm thinking that the 28 percent was an instantaneous value.
Why do you think the energy was "spilled"? I don't know about Spain but here in the US, most electrical power companies make use of SCADA to get real-time data inorder to automatically control generator outputs.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, I'm thinking that the 28 percent was an instantaneous value.
Why do you think the energy was "spilled"? I don't know about Spain but here in the US, most electrical power companies make use of SCADA to get real-time data inorder to automatically control generator outputs.

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again. Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/p8.aspx

 

[taylaron]

I agree Pion

 

[vanesch]

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

 

[vanesch]

Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall: Einstein's quote.

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.

 

[mheslep]

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.

Great historical post - thanks.

 

[mheslep]

GM is working with the the electric utilities to smooth the way for their upcoming PHEVs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121669299205472651-email.html
GM Teams With Dozens Of Utilities on Plug-In Cars Collaboration Seeks To Smooth the Path For Electric Vehicles
By REBECCA SMITH and JOHN STOLL

...After more than a century of relying on gasoline as the main fuel for automobiles, GM and its rivals are scrambling to diversify energy sources. The Chevy Volt, due in late 2010, is intended to be the boldest effort yet, designed to run at full speed for at least 40 miles solely on lithium-ion batteries. Unless plugged in for a recharge, the gasoline engine kicks in at that point...

...At the most basic level, intelligence that will be embedded in the cars in the form of computer chips and software needs to be met with equal intelligence on the utility side. That way, a car that plugs into a garage electric outlet will be recognized as a car by the utility and recharged when it is best for the electric system and, perhaps, at a price that will be lower for cars than other appliances.

What utilities don't want is for cars to recharge during hot summer afternoons, when they could push wholesale electricity prices into a more expensive tier. Off-peak recharging actually could make the electric system more efficient by slightly increasing production at power plants with capacity to spare. Research shows there is enough excess electrical capacity at night to recharge tens of millions of vehicles...

...As utilities begin to confront the integration issues, they also are considering how much they want to encourage deployment . Austin Energy, a city-owned utility that serves the Texas capital, has decided to offer a $1,000 incentive to people who buy plug-in cars.

 

[BWV]

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. However the problem is too complex and with too many technological wild cards such potential breakthroughs in PV technology for a big government solution to work. The gov can create incentives or at least level the subsidy playing field for clean energy sources but it cannot direct, Manhatten project style, a solution to the problem.

The main issue with BP's plan, which I had not seen addressed here is how you handle the peak power needs when you replace natural gas - which is primarily used for peak generation with wind, which is a base electric generator (and actually has its lowest output during hot afternoons when demand peaks).

Solar is the only feasible alternative to gas for peak generation and is quickly becoming competitive.

Fusion has consistently been 40 years away since the 1950s. There is still no way to create more energy than is consumed by the reactor. It would be foolish to give the technology anything more than token funding.

 

[mheslep]

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. ...

What is centralized about the BP plan?

 

[russ_watters]

That is merely your opinion Ivan. I for one like to keep my hopes up. Still aim for that ultamate goal 'up in the sky'. (not offense)

Well, the part about fusion being a 40 year old promise is historical fact. Based on that fact logic would dictate that we cannot base a "now" energy policy on hope. It's fine to have hope and I think we should aggressively fund fusion research, but if we want to get off oil and coal, and we want to start now and make some real progress quickly, we need to do things now, not just hope for a breakthrough that we've already been hoping for for 40 years. That would be irresponsible.

 

[mheslep]

T Boone today on Capital Hill

His prepared opening statement:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/072208Pickens.pdf

C-span video
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/energy/energy072208_initiatives.rm

Items he is asking for in the way support from the US Govt:
For Wind:

• Ten year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind. Currently being extending 1 year at time. At the full build out of Pickens 20% / 200GW of Wind the total tax break is $15B/year (5 - 10 yrs from now or whenever that happens).
• Pass Senator Reid’s bill, S. 2076, which would provide for the identification of National Renewable Energy Zones.
• Siting Authority, for the substantial new transmission line capacity required. This could be tricky; the large Minn. line put in a few years ago had people shooting out tower insulators on a regular basis.
• Federal lands and permitting. Permission for transmission lines to cross.
• Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery. Give FERC direction to spread the costs of the transmission lines.

For the CNG transportation switch:

• All Government vehicles run from CNG.

T Boone bites:

• GM makes 19 natural gas fueled vehicles, all made in S. America and EU.
• Paraphrasing: "People told me at breakfast this morning that wind is there only 40% of the time. Ok, I don't know, this is not my field, I'm a geologist. Baseload it with something, peak it with something"
• "Offshore wind, central part of the country wind, electric car, everything American is good. I'm for that. Offshore, OCS drilling, ANWR drilling, yes, all of it. I want to see all of it. I want to get off of foreign oil."
• "Natural gas is clean, abundant, affordable and, again, domestic. We have approximately 80 years supply of natural gas available to us from sources in North America. Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves., In fact, 98% of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the US and Canada."
• ~90B barrels of offshore of 'in place' off the East / West coats. 'Im not a big believer ... I think you'll be surprised when those tracks [offshore US] are put up for sale.'
• Largest bus fleet in the world is Beijing. 4000. All CNG.

 

[mheslep]

US has become the #1 wind energy producer in the world per first half of 2008. Not the most nameplate, but the US has better wind thus more kWh. So far not even one offshore tower in the US mix.

US takes wind-power lead

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: July 22 2008 03:50 | Last updated: July 22 2008 03:50

The US rush into wind power has enabled the country to pass Germany to become the world’s biggest generator of such energy, according to estimates for the first half of 2008 from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The US had not been expected to reach this milestone until the end of next year. It achieved this early, while still running behind Germany in total installed capacity, because its average wind speed in significantly stronger.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45827516-5767-11dd-916c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

 

[vanesch]

Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Sorry to be OT, but it even occurred to me that if we make chain reaction too easy, it wouldn't be possible either! Increase, say, the amount of U-235 (longer half life), increase the fission cross section, but especially, increase the number of neutrons per fission (say, 5 or 6 instead of 2.3), lower the capture cross section... and you would get a natural critical mass of say, a few grams, which would mean that all fission already occurred in nature: there wouldn't be any natural uranium left!
So the parameters of the fission reaction are tuned such, that it just doesn't occur spontaneously, but it does 'with a little help'.

 

[taylaron]

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

 

[vanesch]

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.

 

[mheslep]

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.

Well very generally I agree it doesn't make sense to 'Manhattan' ITER fusion since, yes, there isn't yet some newly discovered phenomenon that promises big returns if explored and understood a little better. That is, doing a crash fusion project now would be akin to trying Manhattan fission before 1932 and Chadwick's neutron - likely would have gone nowhere after spending vast sums and repeating Madam Curie's radiation induced death numerous times.

That said: 'unexpected ... discover[y]'?? I think you are still placing fission on a shaky pedestal w/ the 'natural' description. Fusion in stellar cores is natural enough.[1] I think one can only say the particulars of a fissile chain reaction happen to be such that they reveal themselves with much less trouble than ... whatever process might make fusion successful.

[1] For the usual refrain in these fusion/fission discussions: Yes I know the Solar core P-P power density is useless for a terrestrial power reactor, thankfully, or the Sun would have winked out long ago. Neither is there a load of enriched Uranium hiding under some mountain, for the same reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

related:

At the time of unveiling, the Volt project had been in existence for less than a year. The Volt was targeted to cost around US$30,000. As of April 2008, General Motors Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Robert Lutz was quoted as saying that the realistic unsubsidised price had risen to US$48,000,[40][41], that he reckoned that US$40,000 might be possible, without making any profit, and that only government tax incentives could take the price tag nearer to US$30,000. When asked directly about the price later, Lutz indicated that this was a misquote - and said "The answer is that we don’t know."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

I noticed last night in the Nova episode, "Car of the Future"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/
that when asked about the readiness of the Chevy Volt, the spokesman responded, ~ "we will be ready when we have batteries".

 

[mheslep]

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again.

So I would call that plan 100% renewable, wind + pump storage + hydrogen (turbine?) storage, and not 100% wind.

Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.

Unlikely that anyone there is considering H2 for transportation - that's out there with fusion IMO. In this case they're likely talking about H2 storage for later use in electric generation via H2 turbines during wind lulls.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

 

[mheslep]

This might put a grin on T Boone's face. GM's VP for R&D likes using a natural gas based engine for combustion end of the PHEV Volt.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/07/natural_gas_an_enticing_alternative.html
Natural Gas: An Enticing Alternative
By Larry Burns
GM Vice President, Research & Development

...In the near term, we can use compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines. Mid term, we can leverage natural gas to create electricity for the Volt and future variants. In the long term, natural gas could be an excellent source for making hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, either at the filling station or in people’s homes...

 

[thewhills]

The US needs nuclear energy, but we complain it isn't safe...Nuclear Energy is VERY safe if properly funded. It shouldn't be long term, just until we have efficient solar panels.

While we are at it, work on a space elevator to dispose of radioactive waste...Until then, but it in a I,believe, a 9in think steel box and launch it into space.

I feel like saying to people

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

 

[Topher925]

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.
Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.
Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.

Close to 20% has already been done in a geographically smallish country like Denmark.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/11/thar-she-blows-dongs-wind-woes/?mod=WSJBlog
10 to 15% wind electrical is almost certain to happen in the US without help from the government, 20% w/ government collaboration, maybe 30% with a big government (non-economic) push.

Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.

Only from the energy use to make Si crystals. Thin films not so much.

Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.

For other than on the spot use, H2 is not viable as an energy carrier. Can't transport it economically.

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

It would be no worse than now wouldn't you think? Why would back-up systems be abandoned? If diesel is the current means of power generation, why would a reserve not be maintained?

From what I've read about the Canaries it seems a pretty windy place. Why not capture that and essentially be off grid as far as hydrocarbon usage - except of course in the case of anomalous weather systems?

 

[LowlyPion]

Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.) As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.

 

[mheslep]

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.)

The numbers of turbines produced are already quite large world wide (10000-20000 MWe / year) and there is already decades of experience especially in Germany and Denmark. The low hanging fruit has been picked, the manufacturers are mature (Vestas, GE, Siemans, Mitsu.). There's no reason to expect the price to come down, it is actually going up a little due to the cost of steel, concrete, and spiking demand. You will not find any $1/W figures for 2008 installed turbines anywhere.

As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.

Wind is no longer an experiment.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.

A one time sunk cost implies the turbines/towers can be maintained indefinitely; I don't think this is case. Instead I believe after 30 years its closer to wholesale replacement of blades and generators, versus maintenance. Still, I expect refurbishing the entire wind farm is cheaper than the comparable job at a 30 year old nuclear plant.

 

[LowlyPion]

Wind is no longer an experiment.

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.

 

[mheslep]

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.

Agreed.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.

Yes not quite 2x yet, $1.8/W for large buys now. However, the Canaries will necessarily not be a large buy and they're remote, so figure at least $2/W.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.

Sure some, but the raw material and manufacturing costs (tower,blades, turbine) have matured, so the cost of a given size tower is not going to come down much. What has been increased dramatically over the last 10-20 years is the amount of energy a given sized turbine/tower can physically capture from the air stream w/ enhanced aerodynamics (the Danes are kicking themselves about this). It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well all I can say is that as far as wind power is concerned I am a fan.

 

[thewhills]

I still think hydro need to be explored more especially in cities like Boston or San Francisco that sit on top of the water.

Hydro on the coast,Wind in the midwest and solar in the south and southwest is ideal I imagine.

 

[Topher925]

It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

Its called the Betz limit, and its just a tad over 59%. This is due to the kinetic effects of the air passing through the rotor disk area. Today's most efficient VSVP WT can capture about 85%ish of the total available wind energy. Thats converting about 50% of the kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy of the turbine itself.

The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

So Pickens' plan to use the midwest good wind corridor, request grid upgrades and transmission right of ways is prudent. The transmission plan is there, but I haven't yet seen a detailed base load power plan. I expect existing hydro will play a role in firming US wind, but what else? Compressed air (CAES) is getting more attention.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/38270.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

Notable NREL conclusion:

...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant...