"Wind is a credible source of new electricity generation in the United States. Wind power capacity additions in the United States rebounded in 2014, with $8.3 billion invested in 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity additions. Wind power has comprised 33% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions since 2007. Wind power currently meets almost 5% of the nation’s electricity demand, and represents more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states, and more than 20% in three states."
I'm honestly surprised states hit by the fracking slowdown (North Dakota and Texas) aren't retraining oil workers to install wind farms. Its safer for them, the work is going to be there for at least a decade, its just the financing we need to get together (y u no DOE energy loan!?)
One consideration after 40 years of experience, we can estimate about 1 really serious nuclear incident per 15-20 years. Adding enough nuclear power to cover our energy needs means we need 25 times more reactors than we have now. I don't really like where the math takes me at that point.
This is great but it does conspicuously leave out one major point of contention with wind power which is their visual impact. Sometimes noise too. Offshore projects have been fought and canceled over this issue. And it looks like the key focus of this article, the 60% capacity, is only achievable if the turbines get even bigger:
> The average new wind turbine in the US is 80 meters tall at its hub. NREL looks at what capacity factors could be reached with 110 meter tall and 140 meter tall wind turbines.
Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.
> Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.
Farmers I've spoken to absolutely love turbines; they receive a lease payment annually for each one on their property.
Now, if we're going to complain about "eyesores" through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, perhaps we could address the _actual deaths_ that coal causes first.
So, I'm not saying it's good that people object to them. But they do. And just stating that they shouldn't mind large on-shore wind farms isn't going to fix that. Nor is stating that people who are paid to host them like them. Nor is stating that they're less of an eyesore than coal mines when these people can't see the coal mines in the first place.
An in-depth exploration of the expansion of wind power really should address this obstacle too, because it's just as big as the technical aspects.
I wouldn't care if they looked like piles of garbage. If they're energy efficient and clean, build them. I mean, we literally build large piles of garbage all over the place. If one's biggest objection to wind power is that it is ugly, then I'd interpret that as no worthwhile complaint.
Makani Power (https://www.google.com/makani/) positions itself as obtaining more power at 250-350m but perhaps a more important metric is obtaining higher "capacity factors" (i.e. more reliable).
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] threadAccept that only nuclear and solar meet the needs of consumers and move forward.
"Wind is a credible source of new electricity generation in the United States. Wind power capacity additions in the United States rebounded in 2014, with $8.3 billion invested in 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity additions. Wind power has comprised 33% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions since 2007. Wind power currently meets almost 5% of the nation’s electricity demand, and represents more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states, and more than 20% in three states."
"Wind is now the cheapest way to bring new electricity generation to the grid in the US" http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-...
> The average new wind turbine in the US is 80 meters tall at its hub. NREL looks at what capacity factors could be reached with 110 meter tall and 140 meter tall wind turbines.
Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.
Farmers I've spoken to absolutely love turbines; they receive a lease payment annually for each one on their property.
Now, if we're going to complain about "eyesores" through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, perhaps we could address the _actual deaths_ that coal causes first.
An in-depth exploration of the expansion of wind power really should address this obstacle too, because it's just as big as the technical aspects.
It's not necessarily that turbines are ugly, to me it's the infrastructure necessary to support the turbines that is ugly.