Pickens Plan -alternative energy

[taylaron]

thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.

 

[OmCheeto]

thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.

Can you provide a reference for that?
From my sterling engine research, this idea doesn't sound very plausible.

 

[taylaron]

why not cheeto?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

im afraid i don't understand your statement on electric gears ivan because you can't generate more energy by uping the gears. you will only lose or gain torque in proportion to your gear ratio. loss of energy from friction. but you know all this.
i suppose i don't understand your concept..

You are thinking of creating more power than we have at the input by increasing the gear ratio, but this isn't the situation. This is a matter of utilizing the power input for a given speed. Power is the product of torque and angular velocity, so for a fixed velocity, the power produced varies as the torque.

But, are we limited to a fixed velocity? I wouldn't think so. That too should be able to vary with wind conditions if we use inverters.

 

[mheslep]

...No, you do not need to store the energy.

If you have 3 electric plants online supplying the grid(coal, nuclear, natural gas), and a wind farm comes online, you reduce the output of the least desirable source of energy, thus extending the life of that fuel source.

Once a highly variable power source like wind becomes more than some small percentage of the the over all power grid then, yes, some method will have to be implemented to store the energy, as has been discussed at length in other threads. Hydro power plants can store excess wind power for instance. Then the wind has to have a transmission connection to the hydro, and unfortunately not much hydro is located in the wind belt Pickens plans to develop. It doesn't make good technical or economic sense to rely heavily on large, centralized coal or nuclear plants for a 1:1 backup as suggested here. Large boilers can not be quickly turned on and off, and the boiler runs less efficiently this way. Gas turbines can be, but then Mr Pickens wants to move all the CNG over to transportation. And for any large plant, the owners want to run it at maximum capacity for economic reasons, selling every possible kWh to pay for that large initial investment.

The Pickens' plan has a goal of 20% (200GW), and that is right at the limit of what is thought feasible.

DoE sponsored web site, introducing their '20% by 2030' plan:
http://www.20percentwind.org/default.aspx
the detailed report here:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf
Edit:
Interesting Details from the report:
-Chapter 4 discusses plans to overcome the variability problem, entitled:
"Transmission and Integration into the U.S. Electric System"
-Modern wind turbine capacity factor has been growing, reaching 36% average for US 2005 farms, with some hitting 45%, Figure 2-4. I've read elsewhere turbine capacity is expected to reach 40% average eventually.

 

[mheslep]

Attached is Figure 4-1 from the '20% ...' report, as it nicely shows the situation. Its simulated but realistic data for two weeks from an area in Minnesota. The conventional power grid there has a peak capacity of 10GWatts, and of 1500 MW nameplate capacity has been installed. The green curve at the bottom shows the wind varying from occasionally zero up to peak, and averaging ~30 some percent.

The authors make the point that since both the demand and the wind generation are independent random variables, combining the two gives a total system variability of only sqrt( 2 * variability(wind) x variability(load) ), and not the raw sum of the two.

 

[nucleus]

There was an article in a Toronto newspaper a couple weeks ago regarding the Danish wind system.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080711.RREYNOLDS11/TPStory/TPBusiness/

 

[rolerbe]

[RANT = ON]

There are 3 basic "energy independence" problems to be solved:

• 'Alternative' energy sources (including grow your own corn for ethanol, etc.) have their place, but do not have sufficient total energy capacity to meet even current world population needs, let alone the needs generated by growing future demand. Also if alternative sources were utilized to the full, there would be significant ecological ramifications.

• Petrochemical (including coal) resources are finite. Even fission nuclear does not last that long due to limits on uranium deposits, etc. One can debate the projections, but they are all around 50 to 100 years at best -- even with all the exotic extraction methods not yet in play. I think we can all agree that we'd like to see human civilization continue longer than 100 years.

• Petrochemical use places us at risk due to ecological impact. One can debate whether global warming is due to the greenhouse effect of petrochemical energy use or not, but one cannot debate that it would be better to hedge our bets on this question by reducing carbon emissions

So what's a poor human race to do? Yes, we can optimize, exploit, and multipath the use of the various current energy sources, but its a short term holding action at best. Where's the promised land after all these efforts? Currently there isn't one. No matter how efficient and clever we get with the current sources we fall off the cliff in about 100 years.

Are we doomed to go dark, or is there an out? Yes -- Fusion. Leads to solutions for all the issues above. But, its too long of a play for the corporate world to take on. We need to push our governments to start doing what governments should be doing -- which is looking long term -- 60+ years, not just the myopia of the 6 year election cycle. We need to fund Fusion research big time, not the piddles it is currently getting. If the US were serious about maintaining the premier superpower position, they would lead this charge, not just tag along as an ITER also ran. Write your congressman!

[/RANT]

 

[OmCheeto]

I'd like to see someone divert the obscene amount of energy used for the big lift to get water to southern California. Put some energy into making that area self sufficient in water and the country could save a very large amount of energy.

I'd never heard of the "Big Lift" until you mentioned it. (Proper name: Edmonston Pumping Plant)

Researching the California Aqueduct, the Big Lift only consumes about a third of the energy to run the whole thing; 2.87 gigawatt's. http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/95/view/tables/ti-3.htm"

hmmm...
12,563,473,215 kwh/yr to run the California aqueduct system(assuming running at 50% capacity 24/7)
0.1 $/kwh
$1,256,347,321.47 annual cost

Powering this set of pumps would require about 2.5 billion dollars worth of the 1.5mw ge wind turbines. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/"

So wind turbines could potentially pay for themselves in 2 years.

It is interesting to note that the people who designed the aqueduct have installed power generating plants to recoup some of the energy expended in pumping the water over various elevations.

http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/swp/swptoday.cfm
Water flowing down the East Branch generates power at Alamo Powerplant then is pumped uphill by Pearblossom Pumping Plant. The plant lifts the water 540 feet. From there, it flows downhill through an open aqueduct, linked at its end to four underground pipelines which carry the water into the Mojave Siphon Powerplant, which discharges the water into Lake Silverwood. When water is needed, it is discharged into Devil Canyon Powerplant and its two afterbays.

So the storage problem of overactive wind farms seems to already have been solved.

And the turbines might pay for themselves in less than 2 years.

 

[LowlyPion]

Of course they should fund alternative energy. Not sure that the question about giving it to Pickens is exactly the right choice, but surely with no limits set on population growth world wide, the only choice on the population/energy treadmill is to develop more energy.

 

[OmCheeto]

Of course they should fund alternative energy. Not sure that the question about giving it to Pickens is exactly the right choice, but surely with no limits set on population growth world wide, the only choice on the population/energy treadmill is to develop more energy.

Although overpopulation is the http://home.europa.com/%7Egarry/populationoverlast12000years.jpg" in our running out of energy, it probably deserves a thread all it's own.

But just to tie it in a bit, if the world had discovered oil around the time we had reached a world population level of 300 million, and maintained it there, the oil might have lasted 3000, rather than just 150 years.

But since we didn't, it didn't, and all we can do now is fix it.

 

[LowlyPion]

But since we didn't, it didn't, and all we can do now is fix it.

I agree, that is the only variable that can be addressed today. And energy technology that will last longer than in ground oil supplies surely must be the most useful legacy we can give off to the next generation.

 

[mheslep]

[RANT = ON]

There are 3 basic "energy independence" problems to be solved:

• 'Alternative' energy sources (including grow your own corn for ethanol, etc.) have their place, but do not have sufficient total energy capacity to meet even current world population needs, let alone the needs generated by growing future demand. Also if alternative sources were utilized to the full, there would be significant ecological ramifications.

This is entirely incorrect. The wind energy in the atmosphere by itself, or the solar energy incident on the Earth's surface by itself, both far exceed the current energy demands of the planet. And that is only counting energy realizable with existing technology. The problems lie in issues like matching the energy source to the demand type (electricity vs gasoline/diesel for transportation), location (Arizona sun vs Maine winters), having the energy when you need it (calm days/ cloudy days), and of course the economics - even if the technology exists does the renewable source cost much more than existing fossil or nuclear sources. Regards demand growth, the energy required per $ of GDP has been dropping for some years in the advanced industrial countries. One can expect the third world demands to grow but as those countries mature economically their energy demand growth will also slow. Regards ecological impact, the only issue I'm aware of that might be called ecologically significant is the use of biofuels (like corn) that compete for food crop land; alga oil or cellulosic switch grass are better upcoming alternatives.
Spend some time here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/

 

[mheslep]

I'd never heard of the "Big Lift" until you mentioned it. (Proper name: Edmonston Pumping Plant)

Researching the California Aqueduct, the Big Lift only consumes about a third of the energy to run the whole thing; 2.87 gigawatt's. http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/95/view/tables/ti-3.htm"

hmmm...
12,563,473,215 kwh/yr to run the California aqueduct system(assuming running at 50% capacity 24/7)
0.1 $/kwh
$1,256,347,321.47 annual cost

Powering this set of pumps would require about 2.5 billion dollars worth of the 1.5mw ge wind turbines. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/" .

Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

 

[rolerbe]

This is entirely incorrect.

I stand corrected. Thanks for making me do a little more direct research on this. I will have to amend the first statement, but believe the net conclusion is still correct. It appears true that the total incident energy on the Earth from the sun is something on the order of 3,000 times current total human energy consumption.

Of course, even in the best of cases, we can harvest only a very small fraction of this incident energy. How large the fraction can be, either by technological or ecological limitation remains to be debated. I think it is too small, but will be doing more research.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Due to the fact that CNG has a higher octane rating than gasoline, CNG engines can use higher compression ratios. So it appears that autos designed to run only on CNG are about as efficient as gasoline powered IC engines. Autos that are converted or designed for multi-fuel options are less efficient.

Natural Gas Vehicles

A Metrobus using natural gasCompressed natural gas (methane) is a cleaner alternative to other automobile fuels such as gasoline (petrol) and diesel. As of 2005, the countries with the largest number of natural gas vehicles were Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Iran, and the USA. [16] The energy efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. Gasoline/petrol vehicles converted to run on Natural Gas suffer because of the low compression ratio of their engines, resulting in a cropping of delivered power while running on natural gas (10%-15%). CNG-specific engines, however, use a higher compression ratio due to this fuel's higher octane number of 120-130.

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

If you're thinking of joining the league of CNG drivers in the U.S., your choice of new vehicles is limited this year to one: The Honda Civic GX, a natural gas-powered version of the Civic. Compared with a Civic Hybrid, you'll pay $2,290 more for the Civic GX, although you'll be eligible for a $4,000 tax incentive instead of the Civic Hybrid's current credit of $2,100. In addition, CNG vehicles such as the Civic GX are eligible for most of the same parking and carpool lane privileges as hybrids; in many states, CNG vehicles were using HOV lanes long before hybrids.

Is it possible for individuals to pump CNG into their vehicle from home? Yes. FuelMaker developed Phill, the world's first home-based fueling appliance, which can be mounted to a garage wall, indoors or outdoors, to allow natural gas-powered vehicles to be refueled overnight directly from a homeowner's existing natural gas supply line.

...Early in 2006, the average price of CNG in the United States was $1.99 per GGE, while gasoline was $2.23 per gallon. While a 24 cent-per-gallon price advantage sounds attractive, CNG vehicles have lower fuel efficiency than hybrid vehicles. A Civic GX, for example, averages 32 mpg, while a Civic Hybrid is rated at 50 mpg. So while a GGE of CNG is cheaper, the Civic GX needs more fuel to operate, and therefore costs per mile are actually higher. [continued]

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/

... Dynamometer testing of the natural gas hybrid prototype on the certification FTP-72 duty cycle revealed very low emissions and mileage greater than 33 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent. This hybrid option utilizes a domestic, cost-effective fuel with renewable sources. With multi-fuel capability (methane, hythane and gasoline) it is also designed for use within the emerging hydrogen market. This hybrid option offers reliability and cost-effective technology with immediate wide spread market availability...

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116325157/abstract

 

[taylaron]

[RANT = ON]
...
Are we doomed to go dark, or is there an out? Yes -- Fusion. Leads to solutions for all the issues above. But, its too long of a play for the corporate world to take on. We need to push our governments to start doing what governments should be doing -- which is looking long term -- 60+ years, not just the myopia of the 6 year election cycle. We need to fund Fusion research big time, not the piddles it is currently getting. If the US were serious about maintaining the premier superpower position, they would lead this charge, not just tag along as an ITER also ran. Write your congressman!
[/RANT]

I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)

With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.

Should our next President carry such ambition? I think so. Because it's up to the people in power to see past their desk and succumb to reality and do the right thing.

I too encourage everyone to write a letter to your respected governor or congressman about this crisis. Help them see past their desk...

 

[taylaron]

I think Pickens Plan is a good start; capable of giving the 'green' trend some momentum around the world. They've got some good forums and updates about all this stuff on the Pickens website.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Pickens will be on Lou Dobbs, next Monday.
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/

As for the potential for fusion discussed earlier: No time. Just like McCain's battery, fusion is a forty year old promise.

The day for each may come, but we can't wait for all of these already dated, pie-in-the-sky promises. Also, I doubt that fusion would prove to be the ideal source of energy that many people expect. IMO, if there is one lesson to be learned from the pursuit of the ideal energy source, it is that there is no perfect option.

Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.

 

[mheslep]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121547405022734039.html?mod=Letters

...Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank's auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fueled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the U.S., with differences driven by local fuel taxes. For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. Adding in a battery amortized over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in early years, but electric cars won't need costly engines or complex transmissions like today's autos...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When they have a battery that costs less than the price of two cars, let me know.

 

[mheslep]

Ok, they do, now, letting you know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok, they do, now, letting you know.

This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.


There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.

This is why Pickens is pushing for NG combustion, rather than electric cars. This is also why McCain wants to offer a 300 million dollar prize for the company that can make a viable battery [which is silly since the incentive already exists].

Are you saying that McCain is simply lying and trying to dupe the public?

 

[taylaron]

Pickens will be on Lou Dobbs, next Monday.
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/

As for the potential for fusion discussed earlier: No time. Just like McCain's battery, fusion is a forty year old promise.

The day for each may come, but we can't wait for all of these already dated, pie-in-the-sky promises. Also, I doubt that fusion would prove to be the ideal source of energy that many people expect. IMO, if there is one lesson to be learned from the pursuit of the ideal energy source, it is that there is no perfect option.

Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.

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)

 

[vanesch]

Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.

For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

 

[vanesch]

I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)

I would like to chime in. It is not about "saving the planet" (that's some Gaia worshippers' religion's claim), but about "saving our lifestyle". So we should find solutions compatible with our lifestyle to save it in the first place. That means that whatever we are going to use as energy sources must be plentiful and economical (including external costs).

There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us: net energy production has not even been demonstrated in extremely sophisticated LABORATORY conditions. So doing this on an INDUSTRIAL scale, and in a COMPETITIVE WAY, is still science fiction. We need to "shift gears" technologically before this becomes conceivable. So putting some brilliant scientists together and giving them unlimited budget for a few years (like the Manhattan project) won't do. Making a nuke was child's game compared to this challenge. Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it.

With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.

ITER is going to run for 30 years, to try to demonstrate for the first time the possibility of producing as much energy as has been put in. Halfway through ITER one will have to determine the design parameters of "DEMO" which should start around 2050 or so, which should demonstrate the possibility of *practical* (but not economical) power production. After that, one should find out whether it is industrially and economically feasible to design a genuine reactor (DEMO will be an international collaboration of which every KWh will be several times the market price if everything works well).

I think one should do that. But I don't think one should include any speculations about any results in any serious energy policy for the coming decades.

 

[dlgoff]

Before you plan to install your own wind turbine or wind farm, you must know if the wind resource in your location is adequate.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"
If we only had wind everywhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

I should have said in the US, where we have plenty of cheap coal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"
If we only had wind everywhere.

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344

 

[dlgoff]

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344

Oh. I agree.
My hope is your algae oil will come to age sooner than later.

 

[mheslep]

...There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. ... Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it...

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:

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.

Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.

 

[taylaron]

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:

Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.

It all depends on your perspective

 

[mheslep]

This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.

There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.

Perhaps we could both be more precise then and drop the 'price of two cars' rhetoric and stick to exactly how much battery is required, and at what price.

The price of Li ion, cited previously, is $450 to $1000 per kWh [1][2]

You used the same assumption earlier to calculate:

...So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1793313&postcount=121
That one - gallon equivalent is plenty, in a 50 mpg equivalent PHEV, to cover the daily short distance driving requirements of most of the US population [3][4], not some small percentage, and not in a golf cart.

All electric cars are not required to have a large impact on oil use. No serious policy makers are pushing all electric in any case; the non-feasibility of recharging in short times on long trips blocks this. As I've made clear previously, it is PHEVs than can seriously impact oil usage. There is serious literature saying the same:

Impact of Drive Cycles and Powertrain Configurations on PHEV Battery Requirements
Date Published: April 2008
Author(s):
Jason Kwon - Argonne National Laboratory
Aymeric Rousseau - Argonne National Laboratory

Abstract:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) offer the ability to significantly reduce petroleum consumptions.. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), working with the FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership, participated in the definition of the battery requirements for PHEVs. Previous studies have demonstrated ...

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1337

A Preliminary Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Wind Energy Markets
...PHEVs
...For the average driver, the use of a relatively small battery delivers much of the benefits of a pure electric vehicle, without the disadvantages of prohibitive cost or limited range...

[5]

[1] $450/kWh http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5490/3
[2] $1000/kWh http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/bob-lutz-drives.html ($1000/kWh)
[3] Table III.A-6. 29.5 average miles per day, light passenger vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf
[4] http://www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/02/power-and-speed.jpg
[5] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39729.pdf, page 2

Now, please, no follow ups about how I am implying this solves all problems, or betting everything on one technology, or that this is the only way to go. I only point out what other (cited) sources say, that PHEVs offer a potential substantial reduction in oil usage.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Ok. So it'll take 10 years for the wind farms to pay for themselves.

Some more interesting numbers can be derived from the given reference:

$1.70 "now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate)" ($/watt) (ref: mheslep)
5600000000 "a total capacity exceeding 5,600MW" (watts) (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/" )
$9,000,000,000 "with annual revenues of more than $9 billion".(ref1)
$9,520,000,000 initial total investment (ref1 capacity * $1.70/watt)
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
8549 hrs/year
47,875,968,000 kwh/yr (=0.37*5.6GW*8549/1e6)
$0.19 $/kwh (=$9e9/47.9e9kwh)

So using your numbers and theirs, it would appear that they now have annual revenues slightly less than their total worst case investment. Perhaps their windmills ended up paying for themselves.

btw, that was an excellent reference you provided: www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
248 pages of numbers. Pure Cheeto candy.

 

[rolerbe]

... I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us:

With the current ITER approach, I believe you are right, or perhaps even optimistic. However, with a 10X increase in funding, I think this schedule can be cut in half. So, not $2B/yr, but $20B/yr. Less than a little local sand war, and way more important.

The best way to go, and cheaper in the long run, would be to have TWO projects. The only way to make fast progress in this world is to turn it into a competitive sport. Look at the atomic bomb program (easier, yes, but then they were computing on punch cards...), Man on the Moon, Human Genome sequencing, etc.