Size Matters in Wind, But Only So Much

By Stephen Lacey, Podcast Editor
April 22, 2010   |   26 Comments

Do you like this podcast?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

Dear Listeners -- While the written companion article for each episode of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast remains below, the associated audio files have necessarily been removed. We apologize for the inconvenience, and appreciate the support you gave to our podcast production.

Thank you,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com

"There's sometimes this obsession with going bigger and bigger and it's not necessarily size that matters as much."

-- Paul Gipe, Author and Wind Expert
26 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 26
CEA
April 22, 2010
The strides the wind industry has made during 2009 where tremendous. It shows that not only can wind energy compete with other sources of energy, but it will continue to provide the means of cleaning up our energy portfolio. What needs to be done now is to continue these aggressive incentives for alternative energy production and allow the market forces to make all energy sources beneficial to the consumers.
Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA's mission and sign up for our informative newsletter.
Comment
2 of 26
April 22, 2010
So exactly how do "agressive incentives" allow market forces to do anything? That is like saying that an outboard motor would allow a sailboat to better compete with faster sailboats. Wind energy cannot compete with traditional sources of electricity without massive "sleight of hand" incentives. The end result is that we pay more for electricity - a lot more. If you gave people the option to personally sign up for wind energy and pay for it what it actually cost you would find very few takers. The whole wind energy business is very dishonest. They tout how many "homes" a windfarm has the capacity to supply. Does anyone ever say that this energy will only cost X% more than normal, or that you can figure on it supplying electricity about 38% of the time, and will reach full power when the wind is blowing a constant 27 miles per hour?
Comment
3 of 26
April 23, 2010
Stephen, the variable-speed patent you are talking about is not as clearly American as you make it out to be. As you can see here http://tinyurl.com/2uuz5ml, the patent blocked Germany's Enercon, which had already developed the technology itself. It is an established fact that an Enercon turbine tower was previously broken into, system data stolen, and pictures of the system taken; the EU looked into the matter and concluded that the US had used its Echelon system for economic espionage and stolen the password to get into the turbine tower.

The US has consistently charged that Kenetech independently developed the same technology and simply filed for the patent in the US first. But that depiction does not explain the previous occurrence of economic espionage. We do not know for sure what was done with the stolen data. We only know that data was stolen, and that a US firm filed a patent for the same technology shortly thereafter.

If you are wondering why Enercon, whose turbines consistently far and away lead the pack in terms of customer satisfaction in surveys in Germany, still does not do business in the US even though they could, look no further. The firm is a GmbH, not a publicly listed company, and hence not bound to shareholder value. In other words, the company does what the management wants, not what public shareholders want. They sell turbines to Canada, but not the US, and it all stems from this case long ago. Enercon won't set foot in the US.

You use this patent as an example of something US firms did right, but knowing the background only further demonstrates that European manufacturers had the right approach all along.
Comment
4 of 26
April 23, 2010
.To get energy from the wind requires a machine composed essentially of two quite different parts. A part that the wind tends to turn - the "Turbine" - and a part that absorbs energy from that turning, and conveys it to some convenient place of our choosing - an Alternator is good for this. These two items exhibit opposite "economy of size". E.g. One T to replace 4 of half the diameter will always cost eight times as much as one of the 4. T-bill/m^2 is therefore doubled by doubling the diameter. The A-bill, in my experience, is approximately halved by this change.
There therefore must exist some size where the T costs about the same as the A. 1 Wad each say. Cost of "TAD" = 1 + 1 which is 2 Wads ?
Either halving the size and building 4, or doubling to replace 4 will cause the cost of the system to change from the 2 Wads to (2 + .5) or 2.5
Wads. Subsequent similar moves increase the cost from the 2.5, to 4.25, 8.125, and so on. The diameter where the T costs about the same as the A turns-out (after some 15 years of solo, unpaid, R+D) to be around a metre diameter (not 40-odd). Just under this diameter the coupling-ratio can be made 1:1 and all else be made happy with that. (but it requires a computer with a language to do that).
Sadly Enrojicon have taken out a patent on anything under TWO metres diameter - just to be on the safe side. They did this by mixing flour and egg and drinking with whisky and a patent clerk.
Neither can anything be allowed to change its speed - rps - in step with the wind since they have also patented this their "great technology". Never mind ! One day -just before the world burns to a cinder - they will arrive (by turning taxpater's money into CO2) at the sensible design that currently exists here in Nikiup, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, which - at some 40th of the cost/Watt, readily returns around 5%p.a. of its cost in many sites. This makes it self-sustaining as opposed to "renewable"
bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom
No image available
Comment
5 of 26
Anonymous
April 23, 2010
One could say that all renewable energy technologies are not economically competitive with traditional energy sources. So how long should we wait before they get support, build up an industry and begin to compete with coal and nuclear? Until coal runs out? As can be seen from the sugar cane alcohol industry in Brazil or the corn ethanol industry in the USA it takes 15-20 years for industries to reach a scale of economic competiveness. Luckily there are some people who understand this and are willing to support these industries.
Comment
6 of 26
April 23, 2010
"Wind energy cannot compete with traditional sources of electricity without massive "sleight of hand" incentives. The end result is that we pay more for electricity - a lot more. The whole wind energy business is very dishonest."

LS_Wyatt, before spouting crap, educate yourselve :

2009 US Oil&Gas companies subsidy = $36.5 billion.
ExxonMobil 2009 NET profits = $45 Billion
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201


"If you gave people the option to personally sign up for wind energy and pay for it what it actually cost you would find very few takers."

Well, I got the option and signed up. I pay a flat rate of 18 cents per kWh (since 6 years), which is the same retail home rate that I got billed previously, using only fossil fuel and nuke power plant electricity being supplied from other utilities, before I switched to the the one I currently use, now supplying me with 100% green electricity. They make a 15% net profit a year, so the business now must be viable no ?
Comment
7 of 26
April 23, 2010
By now we all know wind turbines produce large amounts of energy worldwide. We also know the economics are reasonable and getting moreso. Although wind turbines don't produce 24X7 like more conventional generators, they help alleviate a grid capacity problem. Anywhere there are strong wind resources, sites available and acceptable and favorable economics, such plants should be built. Eventually the power production will even up costwise with conventional sources w/o all the governmental subsidy business of today.

Contrast that to scare tactics being used to promote nuclear power where there are numerous unsolved problems and known negatives, including excessive costs, that have been smoldering for 20 or 30 years. We don't need another technological generation miracle, just a continuing plodding forward in our current direction. If the pace of adding energy generation is too slow and we end up a little short of target 20 years out, then we'll simply cut back on our air conditioner use somewhat and that's not going to bother anybody.
Comment
8 of 26
April 23, 2010
@ LS_Wyatt
I develop utility scale wind farms for a living, so I know a little about your topic. In a sense, what you write contains a kernel of truth. Government incentives distort normal markets. What you're missing is that the electricity business is not a "market" the way most capitalists would think of one. Electricity in the US for the most part is generated and sold to consumers via a group of companies who have been granted state-sponsored monopolies. They are required by state Public Utility Commissions to provide electricity to consumers at the lowest price. In return for this, they get a competition-free operating environment and a guaranteed return on their capital. It's usually pretty easy for power companies to "prove" to a Commission that they're providing the lowest cost power. By relying on legislative enforcement rather than market forces to keep power prices low, we get a distorted market where the $/kWH you pay to keep your lights on doesn't reflect the real cost of the power. Some great examples are the massive public subsidies that flow to all power generators (coal got more than wind in 07), the subsidies that flow to miners, railroads, and everyone else in the coal "value" chain, the "hidden" subsidies that occur when people who live next to coal plants or work in coal mines experience health problems like Black Lung. Those are all real financial costs that SOMEONE bears (and that someone is usually the US taxpayer). A 2009 National Academy of Sciences study put the dollar cost of health problems borne by the public directly attributable to only 6 coal plants in the Midwest at $65 billion per year. The question you should be asking is "does the price we pay for our "cheap" power reflect it's actual cost?" Long-standing subsidies to fossil fuel producers, transporters and generators mean that if renewables are to have a chance, we need some subsidies. Without subsidy, wind would be about the same price as nat gas.
Comment
9 of 26
April 23, 2010
Paul Gipe's observation "The wind turbines don't really need to get any larger. They're big enough. There's sometimes this obsession with going bigger and bigger and it's not necessarily the size turbine that matters as much " appears to be meaningful.

It appears that problems in many of the Multi MW Wind Turbines are yet to be sorted out.
Comment
10 of 26
April 23, 2010
LS_Wyatt,

The petroleum industry has been--and still is--heavily subsidized. In fact, during years spanning 2002 through 2008, the US provided $72 billion in tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. On the other hand, during the same period, the US only provided $29 billion to the RE sector ($16.8 billon went to corn based ethanol).

Please refer to this link for more info: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.htm
Comment
11 of 26
April 24, 2010
Here in New Zealand, there is no subsidy for electricity generated from wind. Neither is there any legal requirement that a certain percentage has to be generated by renewable – and emissions charges have not yet cut in. Yet wind is competing head on with the alternatives – indeed it is the majority of new generation that has been added to the grid in the last few years. While about 2/3 of our electricity is hydro, a significant chunk of the rest is geothermal and we have conventional thermal generation as well, perhaps it is explained because we have better wind resources than many other countries.
Comment
12 of 26
April 24, 2010
Thank you for this excellent summary of the industry's early history.

JPChance.Org
Comment
13 of 26
April 25, 2010
I am about to embark on a new project and build a 1MW plus wind farm on my land here in Wyoming, using recycled medium sized turbines, after reading all of the comments above, i am even more determined to go forward, and i will use any grants or low priced financing to achieve my objective, and hopefully employ a few people along the way, we must renew, recycle and re-create in order to re-employ.I am looking for used medium sized turbines,contact Bob at rmcstay@collinscom.net
Comment
14 of 26
April 28, 2010
Size matters:
Going Vertical axis instead of horizintal could dramatiaclly change the potential because the wings would not be subject to variation of gravitational load and can be stayed as on sailing boats. The diameter could also be massive enabling the system to act as a giant flywheel.
At extreme size limitations with current common engineering materials it would be possible for a single machine to be capable of harvesting up to 750 Mega Watts.
The conversion of this energy into power via multiple generators can be seperated from the harvesting if it is stored kinetically.
The more massive the greater the harvesting and possibly more importantly the power storage capability.
The flexibility enabled by the capability of storing power can itself have dramatic benefits. The local area may need high peak loads or a base line supply. Unlike existing plant the generation capacity need not be the same as the harvesting capabliity.
If large diameter to height ratios are used the airflow on the leeward side will have recovered energy from surrounding air giving the system two bites at harvesting energy taking the energy recovered to a level that is higher per projected area than other systems. The land area used for such machines would be a small fraction of the land used for a wind farm of the same capacity.
With vertical wings moving at speeds similar to that of a fast sailing boat noise and danger to wild-life would be minimal and the risk of ice thrown a significant distance in winter is eliminated enabling flexibility of location.
Marine versions need not be limited to shallow coastal waters and could be made to also harvest wave energy. This could also be supplemented by solar thermal energy bringing a marine plant to well over a Giga Watt.
Inspite of massive scale it is possible for such a system to be based on mass produced modular components, which would result in a very cost effective solution for our energy needs.
gy.mercer@ntlworld.com
Comment
15 of 26
April 28, 2010
1) Current global wind turbines capacity installed = 158 000 MW

Current global annual wind turbine installation growth rate = 20%

In a decade, if it stays 'business as usual' , the installed capacity will have grown to :

158 000 x (1+ 0.2)^10 = 158 000 x 6.19 = 978 294 MW installed all over the world, whatever happens in the US of A.

978 294 MW operating on an average of 30% of the time = 294 000 MW produced per hour.

2) For comparison : current global installed nuclear power capacity = 372 000 MW

372 000 MW operating an average of 90% of the time = 335 000 MW produced per hour.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

3) For comparison : current global installed hydropower capacity = 777 000 MW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
Worldwide, an installed capacity of 777 GWe supplied 2998 TWh of hydroelectricity in 2006.[1] This was approximately 20% of the world's electricity, and accounted for about 88% of electricity from renewable sources.
Comment
16 of 26
April 28, 2010
While it may be the nature of capitolism to advance the investment heavy technologies so the bankers and investors may assume their leveraged share of the product revenues, the idea that wind power is the "giant of renewable tech" flies in the face of what works best and provides the greatest ROI.
There is for more KWH of power available in distributed solar thermal energy than any electricity producing venue. Producing electric power, that part of which may then be used for heating purposes is money wasted by the investor motivated and tech geeky populace. Distributed solar thermal can save more in energy outlays without the conversion losses and uses far simpler methods to get more energy with less infrastructure investment.
So, as you stated, Stephen, "It (wind power) is arguably the most powerful symbol" I felt the need to provide at least one good argument. While it may be the most profitable to more investors in the world, is does not have the greatest non-polluting power provision capability. At least in this scriblers view! Since half of our national power use is for thermal power provision, and most of thast is provided by archane methods. ( I don't like the use of the word "conventional", as solar energy for heating is actually far more conventional than burning stuff to provide it, even tho there is entrenched marketing spin to the convention).
Comment
17 of 26
April 28, 2010
Great post, Stephen. I'd like to see more input on Vertical Axis turbines, as Guy stated. For small scale, it seems a natural, especially for residential areas. I just don't see much discussion of it due to overwhelming interest in large scale facilities. I also see the potential of it for large wind farms, but I think the land use would be about the same. VAWTs would have to be mounted on some type pyramid-base to prevent toppling. I don't know why I think that, but it just keeps coming to mind. Oh, well.
Comment
18 of 26
May 3, 2010
Good History lesson Stephen,

Let's hear it for aggressive Windpower (& all renewable energies) Incentives! Hard to believe that anyone would gripe about that after the month of hell the ridiculously over subsidized fossil fuel industry has put this country through!

Chris DiGangi, EVP
GreenLink Employment Solutions
Comment
19 of 26
May 5, 2010
The first 20 minutes are great history about wind, makes sense for everyone who wants to learn something about the developments in the United States.
Then their was a little mistake in the combination of the thematic cause small wind and offshore are thematics what are from my point of not really compatible in such an discussion round.
Mick and Eize make both great comments about their main thematic but both talks for himself at some points.
Perhaps you could make a podcast for every thematic.

@douglas
at the following links you will find some more infos about vertical concepts.
http://vertaxwind.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4324331
Comment
20 of 26
It would be good to hear more about the engineering and generation-capacity pros and cons on getting bigger; I keep hearing about the floating offshore units being huge.

One possible factor re: getting larger on land: while there remain a few viable theories about what triggers noticeable amplitude modulation (which is often the most "annoying" aspect of wind turbine noise), one plausible notion that's in the mix is that wind shear over the vertical span of the rotor diameter is a contributing factor. If so, that could explain increasing issues with AM from wind farm neighbors. In any case, it could be worth some research to see if the larger turbines seem more prone to AM.
Comment
21 of 26
May 6, 2010
Noise would not be a problem for vertical axis plant with very large diameters and a large diameter to height ratio.
There is no AM issue with a system where the wings have larger chords and do not need to move fast but generate a lot more force.

The vertical wings can also be sectioned to maximise output from differing air velocities by rotating each section relative to its apparent wind direction for optimum angle of atack.

Horse Hollow wind farm with 291 x 1.5 MW and 130 x 2.3 MW for a total of 735.5 MW covers 190 KM^2

A 750 MW VAWT based on optimum parameters as described in a previous post would need less than 8 KM^2. ( such a plant being towards the potential limits of height and diameter.)
gy.mercer@ntlworld.com
Comment
22 of 26
May 6, 2010
It really "beggars belief" that these "technologists" still have not cottoned-on to the fact that bigger is not necessarily cheaper per kW or m^2 of wind faced. The cost of facing any given area of wind is in fact a necklace-shaped funcyion of Size - diameter - of the Turbine-Alternator devices employed. This is because the two components exhibit opposite Economy of size. A t of twice the dia. to replace 4 will cost 8 times as much as any one of the 4. Cost/m^2 is therefore double. Meanwhile the A-bill will be half what it was. Min. cost is for sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around One metre diameter !!
Just under this size the coupling-ratio can be 1:1. There are 3 other reasons which combine to make "modern windfarm technology" about 40 times the cost of power from a sensible design. bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom
Comment
23 of 26
May 13, 2010
Here's a link to the interesting fast neutron post.
fast neutron
Santa Fe, NM
January 12, 2009

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-fe-new-mexican/T0QVJ5UD3R25C8HRL

Google 'scripting languages pollute' for more solar electric generation links.
Comment
24 of 26
May 14, 2010
Your article is very good, I am interested in, usually I like to browse sites about air Jordan shoes, because I really like air Jordan shoes, I saw a very nice air Jordan shoes web site, if you have friends also like it can take a look!
Like air Jordan shoes http://www.mydiscountjordanshoes.com/ air Jordan shoes! Support Jordan!
Comment
25 of 26
May 14, 2010
Your article is very good, I am interested in, usually I like to browse sites about air Jordan shoes, because I really like air Jordan shoes, I saw a very nice air Jordan shoes web site, if you have friends also like it can take a look!
Like air Jordan shoes http://www.mydiscountjordanshoes.com/ air Jordan shoes! Support Jordan!
Comment
26 of 26
June 24, 2010
I agree with CraigMorris as regards the imperfections in the patenting system. The patenting system is no longer the means to protect the small inventor from being exploited by large corporates. It is a tool to fend off competition from manufacturers of other countries. Due to massive proliferation of applications and the multifarious claims involved, it is easy for the examiners to withold the grant on grounds of anticipation, obviousness or enablement, but they choose not to do so and leave it to the affected parties to contest in appeal before the tribunal. Though Enercon GmbH owns several patents in the name of its founder Alloy Wobbens, it perhaps chooses to remain out of the fray due to this lacuna. Absence of competitiion ultimately leads to absence of competitiveness, and consequent high cost per unit, which ultimately the end user or honest taxpayer has to foot.
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

Stephen Lacey

View Stephen Lacey's Profile
About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »

Advertise With Us

Trojan Battery Company The Stella Group, Ltd. Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association 2GreenEnergy.com Met Office SkyFuel 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