Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

WINDPOWER 2008 Focuses on 20% Wind by 2030

May 29, 2008   |   16 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"WINDPOWER 2008 will be remembered as the conference at which the industry really got down to the business of achieving this bold vision."

-- Randall Swisher, Executive Director, American Wind Energy Association
16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
May 29, 2008
Solar gets all the media hype, but Wind is already destine to be the dominate alternative energy.

By 2030, Solar will be lucky to be producing 10% of what wind does on a national scale. You can bet the house that Solar will still get 10x the press coverage that wind will.

Questions:

Will Wind be the dominate alternative energy because of Welfare checks or because its the only cost effective (as low as $.05 per kwh) alternative energy?

Did the Government make Wind the Winner with subsidies or did Wind make itself the Winner by being profitable?
Comment
2 of 16
May 30, 2008
"the only cost effective (as low as $.05 per kwh) alternative energy?"

According to Table 1 of
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Typical costs are
5 to 8 cents/KWH for Onshore Wind
4 to 7 cents/KWH for Small Hydro
4 to 7 cents/KWH for Geothermal
5 to 12 cents/KWH for Biomass

There are several choices for competitive cost alternative power. Pick the one that is most suited to your local resources.

It would be terrific if we could reach 20% wind by 2030 and 50% of some combination of the above 4 renewables by then too.
Comment
3 of 16
May 30, 2008
If America had used the money from just the last Gulf War on wind turbines, she would already have just over 20% extra power generated by wind. Then arguably, she wouldn't have had to go to war to protect her energy sources. (Rolf, think electric cars charged with demand-grid-balancing)
Comment
4 of 16
May 30, 2008
Denmark dumps most of its 20% off to Norway and Sweden. Where are we going to dump ours?
Comment
5 of 16
May 30, 2008
there are questions never answered, as for instance::

how long till to have the return of each turbine placed?
the equation between the costs, even the environmental , envolving all the components of the wind turbines and the benefits of renewble energy and environmental impact?
Comment
6 of 16
May 30, 2008
Jim, I hadn't heard of that particular project in TX. I'll check it out.

Once off shore wind is practical it seems to have more potential for reliable generation (although offset by higher installation/maintenance costs). I haven't read the DOE report and it may factor in offshore, too.
Comment
7 of 16
May 30, 2008
when solar photovotaics become cost effective (?5 years) then you may find the average householder installing them in HUGE numbers like the solar water heaters in israel or greece. Lots of smaller units with no transmission costs may possibly dominate. Perhaps there will be a 'ladder' of electricity generation with nuclear base load, wind and other renewables as intermediate utilities, and domestic solar. All are carbon neutral so helping us with our global warming and all will generate huge amounts of work, investment and earnings. The next investment boom.
Comment
8 of 16
May 30, 2008
Matt,

I concede that wind does have down time, due to too little or too much wind. Wind does have more time online than Solar panels which are only functioning 5 hours or so a day. An article at this site claimed that their down time is said to similar to a normal older electrical plant, just occurring at random and unscheduled times.

When applied on a large continental scale as in the the USA versus Denmark, most of the Wind mills would be online regardless of any single weather event. In Europe, a countries whole Wind system can go off line due to a single storm. Those countries are small, we are not. We just got to use the space we got.

Have you read about the Wind farms going in the Northern Texas? By itself, it will provide 1% of the American Households with power - at a profit with or without subsidies. T Boone Pickings (spelling?) is suppose to be funding it. Over 500 GE turbines will be used. Someone claimed they would be online over 80% of the time. The whole project is impressive.
Comment
9 of 16
May 30, 2008
It will be hard for wind to ever make that much of our power because of unreliablity (it can't be a baseload source), and the sheer amount of land needed to generate significant amounts of power.

Depending on how closely the windmills are packed it would take a land area the size of Wisconsin or West Virginia to replace the power currently created by nuclear power (about 20%).

(source for my statement)
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/03/nuclear-vs-wind-part-i.html
Comment
10 of 16
May 31, 2008
Out here on Cape Cod we have a bunch of people opposed to the Cape Wind project. Opponents throw up a dizzying array of criticisms to kill the wubd farn, including the fact that, since Wind is unpredictable, wind power isn't viable.

This DOE report should help refute that position (if the opponents will listen, which they won't).
Comment
11 of 16
June 1, 2008
My company is intent on commercializing utility scale proprietary "Next Generation" Wind .Energy Designs (NGWED) farms to achieve 25% of U.S. electricity production in 5-7 years from a serious launch, selling electricity profitably at $.05/kWh. This is all within U.S. Territory. Wind power saves over competing fossil fuel costs of: exploration, drilling, extracting, transportation, transportation protection, refining, refinery insurance (from explosions and terrorism), distribution logistics, and maintenance thereto. World War II took us only 5 years to win! Who funds people to taut that "bold visions" to our most pressing problem, Energy, (which is causing global warming, environmental destruction, and wars over finite resources.. ) has a 20% solution is 22 years? Please cite me any sscientific studies on the accuracy of plans which accurately predict sweeping technological changes in 5, 10, 15, 20 years hence? In 10 years applying a 50% growth version of Moore's Law for digital electronics to Wind Power, we should be 15X as cost effective as we are today! CEO, JRIAM1945@AOL.COM
Comment
12 of 16
June 2, 2008
Carolyn L.
Your reference site came up in German, but I will concede that I may have been a little too broad in my statement. You appear correct on those alternatives being cost effective or on the verge of being cost effective.

HEY Jay,

What % of the national market do you think Wind will have by 2015? Do you think Wind should still get subsidies like solar does?

I have mix feelings. I'm against subsidies, but if a low performing system like solar pv gets them then why should Wind be penalize for getting the job done right.
Comment
13 of 16
June 2, 2008
What am I supposed to be chuckling about? I don't see the paper as a prediction, but rather a statement of what's possible with a bit of political will and no new technological breakthroughs.... an achievable goal.

As their flyer says, "The 20% Wind Scenario is not likely to be realized in a business-as-usual future. Achieving this scenario would involve a major national commitment to clean, domestic energy sources with minimal emissions of GHGs and other environmental pollutants."

If your company wins a bit of that pie, well, good for you, I guess that's worth a chuckle. If we don't have the political will, then maybe it's worth a sob. Or are you chuckling because you think the goal is not aggressive enough?
Comment
14 of 16
June 2, 2008
Hi - All, Does anyone share my chuckling when I closely read their headline:
WINDPOWER 2008 Focuses on 20% Wind by 2030? "20% wind"? ,
Comment
15 of 16
June 3, 2008
Regarding the previous comment on T. Boone Pickens' wind project in Texas, it's a great step forward, but my understanding is that it combines wind farms with natural gas turbine electrical generation to compensate for the wind downtime. Yes, Mr. Pickens owns the gas wells under those wind towers. The gas turbines can be started and stopped quickly to follow the wind load. Call it a hybrid [grin] so it's not really carbon free, but still it's a step forward. The real accomplishment is that Pickens stature alone will demolish much cynicism about wind, especially in Texas. And even with the gas consumption figured in, it's still far better carbon-wise than the monstrous 20+ coal plants that were proposed for Texas a few years ago.

What we need is a secondary tax credit that encourages wind farm developers to include electrical storage in their projects, either sodium-sulfur batteries or hydrogen production. A wind farm manager in Texas told me that he felt that hydrogen was the most viable storage technology, and expressed his frustration at being unable to store energy for peak times. NREL has a project for hydrogen energy storage. I am something of a hydrogen skeptic (show me a carbon-free manner of producing a billion pounds of hydrogen per day to run our nation on hydrogen vehicles) but for self-contained energy storage/release applications it could work. There is a big efficiency penalty, but wind farm owners could also sell their power at a much higher rate if they offered dispatchable power, which could compensate for the efficiency penalty.

And the Danish model....look at the fine print. They are connected with their neighbors, such as Sweden, Germany and Norway. When the Danish wind farms are producing excess, they sell power to their neighbors. During slack periods, they buy it from their larger neighbors' baseload supply. However...this is an example of how it could work in America, between the states.
Comment
16 of 16
July 3, 2008
On the one hand, technological breakthroughs are difficult to predict. On the other hand, not assuming any aggregate benefit from breakthroughs might be a bit unlikely as well. So I think this analysis is very conservative. Just imagine if superconducting turbines, new two bladed designs, Tubercle Technology or any other major advance moves forward really quickly. It's highly likely that at least one or two breakthroughs will occur in the 2010-2030 timeframe.

The future does indeed look bright for wind, even if continuously high commodity prices and other setbacks keep on proliferating.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Sol Systems LLC Dow Solar AREDAY American Wind Energy Association Nextronex, Inc. American Solar Energy Society 350 Media
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters