Slashdot Mirror


A Server Farm Powered By a Wind Farm

1sockchuck writes "A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. Its first project will be a wind-powered server farm powered by 100 wind turbines in the Texas panhandle. The company has also leased 38,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico, where it hopes to build hundreds of 300-foot wind turbines that can each generate up to 5 megawatts of power to support additional facilities. Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."

47 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Car powered by a wind farm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've built a car that runs on a wind farm. Only problem is that it only works in the water. 100% green though!

    1. Re:Car powered by a wind farm. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      But does it run Wind River Linux?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    *Hundreds* of 300ft wind farms to power a data center? Holy sustainability problems Batman!

    1. Re:Umm... by HalifaxRage · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know I could have sworn someone was trying to sell a few hundred giant turbines here a few days back...

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
    2. Re:Umm... by tthomas48 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that, yes, our modern lifestyle is excessive. But this is happening with coal too. You just don't appear to live in a state where it's extracted, nor downwind of where the plants are releasing pollutants. Texas has a LOT of land that's not particularly good for animals, humans or plants over about 3 feet tall, and is perfect for wind farms.

    3. Re:Umm... by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 2, Informative

      you've must never have seen the Texas panhandle. its big, barren, desolate, empty space, like the moon- but with wind.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    4. Re:Umm... by aldousd666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ones they have in PA are a standard 400 feet tall. I didnt know that they were making smaller ones. In fact they have a windmill factory about 45 minutes from my house, and it cranks out the gigantic blades by the truck load. They're multiplying. I say fine, build wind farms, but don't expect it to replace the supply of coal plants anytime in the near future. I'm betting solar or fuel-recycling nuke plants are the eventual victory over energy. (with solar still requiring significant advances, and nukes requiring significant education -- people are still worried they blow up like nuclear bombs.)

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    5. Re:Umm... by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 4, Informative

      Texas has a LOT of land that's not particularly good for animals, humans or plants over about 3 feet tall, and is perfect for wind farms.

      Well, that's easy for you to say. Do you share the same opinions about the landscape of the arctic wildlife preserves?

      theres a big difference between the artic wildlife preserves and the texas panhandle, BIG. obviously theclimate, but only _slightly_ less obvious is the wildlife diversity / scarcity. theres not a lot of wildlife that lives specifically in that area at all, much less endangered species. There are few Raptors that live in that area as well, furthermore the Energy Center of Wisconsin claims that Cell Phone Towers kill far more birds annually. i guess we should stop using them too, huh?

      Those wind farms really scar the countryside, and the maintenance roads that link them further destroys the ecosystems you so readily condemn. Don't forget about the intra-farm transmission lines and support structures. These things destroy hundreds of square miles to produce the power of one natural gas power station. Of course, it's on somebody else's land, though, isn't it? I guess there's no price some people are not willing for someone else to pay.
       

      In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment--95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. But lets not limit our view to land use, since you mentioned the alternative of natural gas, lets look at some of the resources that requires in comparison
      according to the American Wind Energy Association [awea.org] (i know, probably a somewhat biased source, but hey, its _a_ source, all i saw in your post was youtube, which i dont consider a source for things like _facts_ and _data_) a combined cycle gas plant requires approx .25 gal\kWh produced, a wind plant requires .001 gal\kWh, again i ask, have you been to Texas? its not exactly drowning in water, except for the Gulf Coast, but thats several hundred miles away, should we truck the water in or lay pipelines for a gas plant? i'm sure the impacts of that would be minimal.

      And funny that coal was mentioned, because it is the most favored fuel under the new "green energy" bill passed by the US House of Representatives. It is going to be massively subsidized for decades to come, while the cleanest fuel (natural gas) is the most punished -- both in power generation and industry. But, hey, who cares if "green energy" as portrayed in the popular press works or not... it's _GREEN_, and these wind farms go to ELEVEN!

      ummm... the the US house of representatives? the same US house of representatives that is considered to be the 7th most corrupt on the planet by Transparency Internationals 2009 Global Corruption Barometer? http://www.transparency.org/ you _really_ want to trust that they're looking out for _your_ interests? wait, are you an Oil Barron, or a major Pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a Multinational Conglomerate or a failing bank? if so, these just might be your guys.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    6. Re:Umm... by tthomas48 · · Score: 2

      Yes. Just to add to this. Most of west texas has been used for cattle for decades now. All the old growth has been destroyed. The grasslands have been destroyed. And most native species have been destroyed. Cattle are far worse to the environment than wind turbines. To get it back to the state that the artic refuge is in would take many years. I'm not suggesting we put them in Big Bend.

      But hey, you have no solutions, so why not condemn everyone else's!

      * And just as a footnote. The Obama administration is a pretty conservative administration. Most liberals are not happy with a lot of his policies (esp. clean coal). I know that Limbaugh and Fox tell you that we all march in lockstep behind our leader, but it's simply not true. Most liberals like him for the same reason a majority of Americans like him - he comes off as a nice guy. His policies aren't that great, but when you compare them to Bush they're fantastic (although that's like comparing a community theater to an elementary school christmas program).

    7. Re:Umm... by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those wind farms really scar the countryside [...] These things destroy hundreds of square miles

      What damage, precisely, is done to the countryside? Other than the tweaking of some peoples' overly-developed sense of aesthetics, and a few access roads and power lines, I don't see much damage being done. It's certainly a lot easier on the enviroment than mining, oil drilling, or hydro would be, and it has the added benefit of guaranteeing that no additional development will occur on the land, indefinitely -- i.e. once you've built your wind farm there, the chances of a city/freeway/landfill/etc being built on the same land are slim to none. For any plants/animals that can tolerate the presence of windmills (i.e. most of them), that's not a bad deal.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:Umm... by amias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      excellent points , wind farms protect land and offer us the best compromise for getting power with low environmental impacts.

      i for one find them enchantingly beautiful , monuments to both the intelligence and sensitivity of humans.

      There are lots of designs beyond the big spinning blade models , you can use the vibration of taught threads and vertical rotating blades
      (think spinning signs) so its possible to fit wind generation to lots of different sites.

      the answer to the question of where to get our power is that there is not one answer but many little distributed answers :)

      Toodle-pip
      Amias

      --
      [site]
    9. Re:Umm... by xenolion · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other problem with nuke plants is the ageing work force and buildings. The nuke plant close to where i live is having a very hard time hiring workers. Due to the fact that people are so scared of them due to our ever great TV and education system the teach people that nuke plants are evil. As for the education to work there its not that hard the first step is to at least pass college chemistry. Then they train you for 16 months before you even walk into the site. (Buddy of mine just passed all his training). All in all Im with you, Wind, solar, nuke, coal we need them all at some still need a lot of time to develop and grow before we see them being used every day.

  3. One small technical hurdle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The current version has coal-fired blowers feeding into the wind farm.

    Future versions promise to remove the coal-fired blowers.

  4. Why not just use the grid? by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. [... ] it will use [the local utility] as a backup when the wind dies down."

    If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?

    Or are they just trying to say that it's net-positive? Or what? The linked article doesn't seem to claim that the data center will be "powered entirely by renewable energy", so it isn't much help.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Why not just use the grid? by bugnuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You calculate your average annual load, and scale your wind farm for that load. If you produce more, it goes into the grid for someone else to use. If you produce less, you draw from the grid and pay rip-off prices from the local power company. Basically you're using the power grid as a huge battery and hoping your numbers were close enough to produce what you draw.

      It's better than just a net sum of zero. It's actually better when you use the produced energy yourself, because there is far less energy loss than if the power company sent it to you. Transmission losses for a short distance from the wind farm to you are much lower, assuming you don't skimp on the wiring, and any excess energy will be sent to downstream customers with less loss, too, especially if they make it a high voltage generating station (and I suspect they have to due to the size).

    2. Re:Why not just use the grid? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's better than just a net sum of zero. It's actually better when you use the produced energy yourself, because there is far less energy loss than if the power company sent it to you. Transmission losses for a short distance from the wind farm to you are much lower, assuming you don't skimp on the wiring, and any excess energy will be sent to downstream customers with less loss, too, especially if they make it a high voltage generating station (and I suspect they have to due to the size).

      From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.

      Is it cheaper to build out your own power generation than it is to pay for the overhead and profits of the grid power suppliers? What are the efficiencies of scale in electricity generation? How does capital financing play into this -- would the utilities get much cheaper capital from the financiers?

      I like the main idea of your post, though. Distributed (and sustainable/green) power generation with traditional power companies acting as a backup supplier would give a nice transition to a more sustainable generation system. Unfortunately, I think if that model were adopted widely, we'd lose one of the great efficiencies of centralized power generation -- predictable loads. The big power companies would need to shift to power supplies that have a quick response to increased demand (or they'd need to waste a lot of fuel maintaining higher base generation).

      I'm by no means an expert in the industry, so I don't know tons about how it *could* play out, let alone how it *would* play out... but I do wonder how a grid-based backup supply could cope with highly variable demand.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Why not just use the grid? by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming the grid can accept that excess power, which is not a sure thing. Often peak power usage times doesn't correspond with times of optimal wind speed. There have reportedly been instances in which some grids in Europe have experienced severe problems due to large excess and/or rapidly fluctuating loads coming from wind farms.

      Ron

    4. Re:Why not just use the grid? by aldousd666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They'll have to invent a new HTTP error code: 603 - Calm Weather

      --
      Speak for yourself.
  5. Something about this lacks "reality" by Whuffo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The linked story has all of the alternate energy buzzwords in it - and it's nice that they've gained the wind power leases for some land in Texas. But all those high-powered wind turbines are going to cost some very serious cash - that's the first problem. They aren't likely to have access to the kind of money it takes to make this happen. Then they talk about having their data center in three years. There's another clue to what's going on here - even if they did have the money, it'd be very difficult for them to have even one of these wind turbines actually generating power by then.

    I'm still chuckling about those 300 foot tall towers that will be standing on the 450 acres of ocean they've leased. For extra credit, calculate the wind load of a turbine extracting 3.5 MW of power from the wind when it's at the top of a 300 foot tower. For extra credit, determine the size and number of supports it would take to keep this thing standing. Remember, it's standing in the Gulf of Mexico so be sure to design for the storms that blow through there from time to time and a long life standing in seawater.

    It's an interesting story - but if you're approached about investing in this project you might want to keep your wallet in your pocket.

    1. Re:Something about this lacks "reality" by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Katrina was Cat 5 while it was in the Gulf. So was Rita. I take it you have a lot of those in the North Atlantic?

      Check the oil rigs they put in the North Atlantic & the ones they put in the Gulf. Look at which ones they build to take more punishment. It's not all about the Hurricanes.

  6. wake up folks need more nuclear power! by unix_geek_512 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need more nuclear power.

    Wind turbines are great and all, except for the fact they need tons of copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other resources which require a heck of a lot of energy to mine and produce.

    All those resources are best used elsewhere, where it is more efficient.

    Nothing beats nuclear power at providing base generating capacity.

    Let's get some hydro in there too, hydro is a dirty word nowadays, which is insane. It's more green than all the "fashionable green technologies".

    Give me an all of above approach please!!!

    And don't forget we need to return to the moon and start mining Helium 3 now();

    1. Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wind turbines are great and all, except for the fact they need tons of copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other resources which require a heck of a lot of energy to mine and produce.

      So do fuel-burning plants (though not precisely the same amount or mix of materials). Whether the fuel is combustible or nuclear.

      But the "fuel" for the wind turbine is just wind - which is free (except for the cost of using the site). And the "ash" is slower wind (typically in a place where using the land involves raising windbreaks anyhow). Beat THAT with your nuclear reactors and their uranium mines, processing plants, and waste disposal issues.

      Call me when somebody gets a practical hydrogen-boron fusion design working and we'll compare costs over the life of the device.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is wind really "free"? If we install enough wind turbines, wouldn't we slow the spin of the earth because of the collective resistance of the turbines?

      Nope. Angular momentum is conserved. You'd just be modifying the distribution of it between the atmosphere and the ground's motion - and the planet is a LOT more massive than the atmosphere. (Also: In the temperate zone you'd SPEED UP the Earth by slowing the wind. But not by enough to measure.)

      As for weather effects and the like: A wind farm has about as much effect as growing a forest or raising some skyscrapers. It's a drop in the bucket, atmospherically speaking.

      Give me a call when they're powering the whole planet by using dirigible-borne wind turbines to slow the jet stream by a few percent. It might make a detectable difference in storm tracks.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! by uvdiv_blog · · Score: 2

      First off, it's simply not true that aneutronic fusion is clean - it yields only a fraction as many neutrons as D-T, but that's still a huge flux, which will transmute containment materials into radioactive isotopes. Look it up - every "aneutronic" reaction has inevitable side reactions which produce neturons.

      Secondly, neither boron or He-3 fusion are anywhere close to reality. The have extremely small cross sections compared to D-T, so they need temperatures an order of magnitude hotter. This isn't practical.

      See the graph on wikipedia (axes are logarithmic!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fusion_rxnrate.svg

      So I think the future of fusion is D-T.

    4. Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! by uvdiv_blog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of which the waste can be dealt with with current technology (pebble bed reactors),

      I don't get it - why pebble bed reactors? They don't seem suitable for destroying waste (that is, transmuting and fissioning the transuranics). First off, many PBRs are completely unsuitable for this - because they are uranium-cycle reactors in the thermal spectrum, and are not breeders - they do not destroy TRUs, but in fact create more of them. I guess some PBRs could be breeders - maybe the thorium PBRs, but even then there's a huge problem. PBRs are not designed for a closed fuel cycle - quite the opposite, the extremely-hard ceramic pebbles are designed to be indestructible and inert, not easily amenable to chemical reprocessing (which as a first step, means dissolving or melting the spent fuel elements.)

      There are other reactors that are designed for closed fuel cycles, and disposing of nuclear waste. One class is the liquid-metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR), like the IFR that was developed at Argonne national lab. The IFR was designed around a reprocessing cycle (pyroprocessing): that is why it uses metal fuel, as opposed to the common metal-oxide fuels, which are harder to reprocess because you need to reduce the very stable uranium/plutonium oxides. (Or even worse, the carbide fuel in TRISO pebbles).

      Another reactor designed for reprocessing is the molten salt reactor, which has a liquid core (!) of a low-melting point fluoride salt. This is even more amenable to reprocessing - there is no need to break down - and then fabricate again - the solid fuel elements, as there aren't any!

      But as far as I know, pebbles beds have no chance as a closed fuel cycle.

    5. Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! by RobVB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I look forward to loosing the extra weight when we hit zero-G because of the spin stopping

      What happened to gravitation?

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
  7. Wind is nice, but.... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would rather see these companies spend money on geo-thermal or Solar Thermal. Both of these can serve as base-load power.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  8. 59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    59 square miles of land to generate a theoretical maximum of 1500 megawatts (300 turbines x 5 MW each). But the reality is even with all 300 turbines running, assuming they all get built, the actual power output much of the time will be well below their rated maximum output. A nuclear power plant, in particular, those containing multiple reactor units, can easily produce well in excess of 1500 MW on a much smaller foot print than 59 square miles, and more consistently.

    In my view, wind power is a fad. I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down. To digress, right now, wind turbines, in most places, are still a novelty and seem neat, but once they're everywhere, and especially as they age, aren't going to seem so nice anymore.

    Solar, especially home and business installations on roofs, which basically unused space now, shows much promise - won't eliminate the need for the grid, but will reduce demand somewhat while saving people money.

    Ron

    1. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by StickyWidget · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nuclear power plants in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 30-40 Billion dollars just to build.

      Wind Farms in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 300-400 million dollars to build.

      Put in the zeros:
      40,000,000,000 vs 400,000,000....

      For the price of one 1500 Megawatt nuclear plant, we can build 100 1500 megawatt wind farms.... 1500 MW Care to revise your argument?

      ~Sticky

    2. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by Tweenk · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are some important differences between a 1500MW wind farm and a 1500MW nuclear plant. The nuke will actually put out 1500MW consistently regardless of weather conditions (with a good track record of security you can even get an uprate of a few percent), whereas the wind farm will sometimes give you 1000MW and sometimes zero (wind farms rarely achieve their theoretical power output). The nuclear plant will also probably last longer.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    3. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      59 square miles of land to generate a theoretical maximum of 1500 megawatts (300 turbines x 5 MW each).

      Most of the ground in those 59 square miles will still be empty. Is there any reason wind can't co-exist on the same land with agriculture, grazing, or solar power?

    4. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A nuclear power plant, in particular, those containing multiple reactor units, can easily produce well in excess of 1500 MW on a much smaller foot print than 59 square miles, and more consistently.

      Why is land area the primary criterion? Why talk about wind farm land 'foot print' as though it were a big parking lot you plop down, as if it occupies land in the same way a nuclear plant does. One of the nice things about wind farms is that at ground level they consist of mostly empty space which can be used for farming, animal grazing, and so on. If it even matters. Nobody cares about squeezing multiple uses out of every square mile in west Texas, for example. Unless it's to put wind mills where you already have oil wells, which I've seen. There's plenty of land besides that isn't being used for anything else.

      In my view, wind power is a fad. I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated

      If they're tearing it down in twenty years, then they'll only be doing it to put up a new one, because they would have long since made a profit on the windmill. The farms that were built ten years ago have already turned nice ROIs. Even without a lot of incentives, it's profitable to run them. Unexpected maintenance issues late in life aren't going to change that. Forget some Oil-and-would-be-water Baron in the panhandle; there's a reason they're throwing up all those wind farms in west Texas.

      Now I could see development slowing down if they start to run out of economical places to put them. But why would they tear down farms in places that have already proven to be profitable?

      many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down.

      Ah. Wishful thinking. Sorry you feel that way. I think a wind farm looks beautiful, personally. Some older models aren't very good looking, sure. But all the new ones they're building look elegant to me, a modern take on an old pastoral theme, and seen a hundred of them all carving out big circles at slightly different speeds is mesmerizing.

      Solar, especially home and business installations on roofs, which basically unused space now, shows much promise - won't eliminate the need for the grid, but will reduce demand somewhat while saving people money.

      Yeah, that's nice too. Economies of scale help here though just like with everything else, so it's not always as clear for a homeowner that it's a good ROI, but in the right conditions it does very well. My house used to have solar panels on it, but they were removed due to maintenance issues and a bad installation that affected the roof. It's possible I'll new ones up at some point. Commercial rooftops, though, sound like a fantastic place for solar.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by uvdiv_blog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nuclear power plants in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 30-40 Billion dollars just to build.

      Nonsense. The new French reactor, 1650 MWe, has a pricetag of $4.8 billion. Recent Japanese and Korean reactors were in the same range - $2-3/W (PPP), as surveyed by MIT CEEPR (under "update on the cost of nuclear power"). The accompanying study (2009) predicts costs for new US reactors to be $4/W. In short, the numbers are consistent. You can look up cost figures, levelized cost studies (here's a start) up and down, and you will find this is true.

      Wind Farms in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 300-400 million dollars to build.

      Also nonsense. Just take one recent UK wind farm, which came in at £111 M for 60 MWe - $2.07/W, or extrapolating, over $3 billion for 1500 MW. You can survey costs all over the web, and this is typical. Whitelee, Europe's largest onshore farm, cost £300M ($496M) for 322 MWe, $1.54/W. Lynn and Inner Dowsing - UK's largest offshore farm - came in at £300 M ($496 M) for 194 MWe, $2.56/MW. The famous London Array is now at £3B ($4.96 billion) for 1,000 MWe: $4.96/W. (To be fair though, this represents a 200% cost overrun over the original estimates.) (Sorry about the angstrom signs: they are supposed to be British "pound" symbols)

      Also, besides the fact that your bogus figures for wind are 10 times cheaper than reality (and for nuclear, 10 times more expensive than reality), your comparison is bogus in yet another away. You comparable incomparable quantities: a megawatt of baseload yields far more energy than a megawatt of wind power - because it yields power continuously, whereas the wind turbines are very frequently down, or generating at fractional capacity. This is represented by the "capacity factor", which is the fraction of the nameplate capacity actually achieved by a power plant - ratio of [average power output]/[power capacity]. And while nuclear power plants, as generally reliable baseload plants, run at 90%+ capacity factor - that is, average 0.90 MWe of generation for each 1 MWe of nameplate capacity - wind farms, becuase of the obvious intermittency of wind, average only 20-30% capacity factors, with some exceptional offshore locations yielding 40%. Those megawatts are completely incomparable: 1 MWe of nuclear yields 2-4 times more energy than 1 MWe of wind power.

    6. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by shermo · · Score: 3, Informative

      A type 1 wind site will get about 40% of maximum capacity on average. So a simple multiplier still puts wind farms a long way ahead on those numbers.

      Of course there are other benefits to nuclear over wind and as the proportion of wind increases, the grid quickly becomes unstable. However at the current level of wind penetration that's not an issue, so wind farms are the better choice.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    7. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my view, wind power is a fad. I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down.

      Oh? How much would you wager?

      There are already wind farms that have been around for more than 20 years (e.g. the Altamont Pass farm in California), installed in response to our last energy crisis (in the '70s). The last few decades have indeed seen some of the turbines being taken down, but often simply to be replaced by newer, larger models that generate more power and are less hazardous to wildlife.

      As to your speculation about efficiency and maintenance, it seems odd in light of this history. What surprising new general problems with turbine maintenance and efficiency are we going to learn in the next two decades that we didn't learn in the past few, beyond the occasional "lemon" model of turbine? If turbines were so spectacularly troublesome in general, then why would the owners of the older wind farms have continued to maintain and upgrade them over the past few decades? Do the people installing new farms fail to investigate the historical record when presenting the efficiency and operation and maintenance (O&M) components of their cost model to investors? Are the investors similarly negligent when making the massive capital outlays necessary to finance a wind farm? None of these wind farms are heading for flashy IPOs where VCs can unload risk onto the public.

      Wind energy may have been a "fad" in the early '80s, but in 2009, it is a relatively mature and serious industry, with long-term investments and time horizons. There are conferences all about trends in wind energy O&M, for Christ's sake. This notion you seem to be presenting, that the entire industry is ignorant about the subject and you're the only one who has thought to anticipate these problems, is laughable. It seems more like you just don't like wind turbines and are speaking from hope, rather than knowledge.

      The truth is that turbines have become more efficient and maintainable as time has passed, and it is likely that this trend will continue as the technology continues to mature, as competing wind farm operators demand better performance from competing manufacturers, and as these operators deploy condition monitoring, predictive modeling, and other technologies designed to reduce O&M costs.

      However, if you really are convinced of your opinion and serious about your wager, it's possible that, if you wished to make your challenge on longbets.org, someone would be willing to take you up. So, issue your challenge and put your money where your mouth is. I'd suggest you put at least $2000 on something like "in the year 2029, the rate of wind turbine demolition will exceed the rate of wind turbine construction, and this will largely be attributed to unforeseen efficiency problems and maintenance costs."

      Or, your could settle back in your armchair and leave the opining on wind turbine efficiency and maintenance to people who know something about it and have real money riding on getting it right.

    8. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by StickyWidget · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jeez. Where do I even start....
      1. Don't reference Other Countries nuclear programs. This is the United States, where the costs of regulation, permitting, licensing, buying land, paying off neighbors, etc outweigh the material cost of a reactor. Don't compare France. Japan, Korea, or all those others, to the US, it's apples and oranges when it comes to nuclear acceptance. The issue was a wind farm in the US, not France. A nuke in America costs 30-40 billion dollars, stem to stern, full cost. That's the cost of a FULL COMPLETE nuke plant(including water treatment, balance of plant, turbines, etc), but I'll forgive your ignorance on that. People who read wikipedia and don't know power generation often make that mistake.

      2. You got your numbers wrong: Financing referenced in that wikipedia article is only for construction phase, which is the CHEAPEST part of building a nuke. Permitting isn't there, startup (which is WAY expensive) isn't there, commissioning (which is RIDICULOUS expensive) isn't there, NRC approval and licensing (which is THE most expensive piece) isn't there. If you worked for a utility or in the nuclear industry (like me) you'd know this.

      3. If you want to reference a source, use one with some TEETH. Something like http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html, or http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82975.pdf. Some dipshit's blog doesn't count, especially when he admits a full bias and doesn't disclose his credentials. BTW: I'm a computer engineer with 5 years of experience in control systems, power generation, and the economics of electric power.

      4. Seriously? OFFSHORE wind farm budget numbers up against LAND BASED wind farms? Lets' see, we'll put a wind technology that is designed, constructed, and operated in one of the most harsh environments on the planet, which you have to helicopter maintenance personnel into, against a wind technology that is built on solid ground, with standard materials, and can be maintained with guys in trucks. Gee, that's a real valid comparison. My wind numbers are accurate, I know because I work in the industry.

      5. Fine. Assume that they produce 1500 MW 10% of the time instead of 90%. Still a break even with my ACCURATE numbers.

      6. Definitely not an engineer. Megawatts are always comparable, they are absolute quantities. A MW produced by a wind farm is the same MW produced by a nuke. Yes, while wind provides a smaller percentage of it's capacity factor when compared to nuclear, that can be (supposedly) be defeated with large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms.

      Nukes cost a lot of money. That is the operational reality. Get over it. Until someone decides that nukes are a good investment for their cost, we will not see a nuke plant. Other countries can do what they like, they are 20 years ahead of us. The NRC rules all, and nobody wants to finance something we can't figure out how to get rid of the waste for. And that's sad, because nuclear power is the future of baseload generation and will help end our dependence on fossil fuels.

      ~Sticky

    9. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by shermo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which bit exactly? The 40% number is taken from real wind generation data I have sitting in front of me. It's all public domain stuff.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    10. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down.

      I live in the Netherlands, and I can tell you that windfarms can be turned into a thriving tourist business after a couple of centuries.

    11. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by uvdiv_blog · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sigh.

      1. Don't reference Other Countries nuclear programs. This is the United States,

      My $4/W figure was the estimate for new United States reactors, according to the interdisciplinary MIT study The Future of Nuclear Power (the 2009 update).

      Referring again to the MIT study, they explain in detail what goes into their cost models (the 2003 full report, appendix 5). It encompasses EVERYTHING - the entire plant (steam turbines and all), the operating costs over 40 years of operation, 40 years' worth of fuel, the decomissioning costs after those 40 years, the waste disposal cost under the current 0.1 c/kWh DoE fee, etc. The TOTAL cash flow is estimated at $4.5 billion (nominal) during the construction phase - see the supplemental paper Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power, table 6A (this doesn't include the financing costs - go down to 6C).

      Of course, what's really interesting is the levelized lifetime cost, per kWh. The MIT study estimates this at 8.4 c/kWhe; I've surveyed a dozen other such levelized cost studies on my blog. Feel free to follow the links and read up on them.

      By the way, the NRC fees a very tiny part of costs - currently $4.6 M/year, out of of the MIT estimate of $56 M/year of fixed O&M costs (for a 1 GW plant).

      6. Definitely not an engineer. Megawatts are always comparable, they are absolute quantities. A MW produced by a wind farm is the same MW produced by a nuke.

      Nameplate capacities are incomparable. They represent peak power generation; but some power plants always operate at full power, and others operate intermittently, hence the energy yields (integral of power * dt) are completely different.

      Yes, while wind provides a smaller percentage of it's capacity factor when compared to nuclear, that can be (supposedly) be defeated with large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms.

      No, that's a fallacy. 1 MWe of wind (nameplate capacity), at 30% capacity factor, averages 300 kWe (averaged over long time periods), with an instantaneous range of 0-1000 kWe. Adding together a thousand such (identical, independent) turbines gives you an average of 300 MWe, albeit with lower statistical variance - smaller fluctuations.

      You are conflating two separate issues. One, is that the average output of a windfarm is a fraction of its nameplate capacity. Two, is that the output over time has very large variations. See? They are separate problems.

    12. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by risom · · Score: 3, Informative

      The nuke will actually put out 1500MW consistently regardless of weather conditions

      Theoretically - mostly yes. I don't know nothing about the environmental laws in the USA, but in Germany there are laws allowing only a specific maximum of thermal energy to be diverted into the nearby rivers - so in a hot summer the nukes can only operate at 30% or even less (like in 2006) - source)

      Practically they are down quite often. They can only operate 92% of the time for maintenance reasons (same source). And even after maintenance they fail quite often. From the 17 or so nuclear plants in Germany at least one is down for security reasons at every given time. So even without a warm summer they are up at most ~85%, with a hot summer perhaps only ~75%.

      So with an average uptime of about 80% and the 40% average capacity of wind farms stated by shermo nukes are still fifty times(!) more expensive than wind farms.

    13. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, pretty and colourful powerpoint stuff to make the guys that drank through their MBAs eyes glaze over, but do you have any figures linked to a real plant that can actually be named so that people know you are not pulling a fast one? That IMHO is the big problem in the nuclear debate at them moment, nobody is prepared to name the costs of the single plant anywhere. We just get some incredibly unlikely adjusted value which pretends to be an average but ignores the not paticularly well performing dead end designs still running. It would be far more credible to name a successful plant and give details about that since nobody is going to build any of the poor designs anyway. Your wide comparisons of very different things do not fit together.
      Every other energy generation method can do it - name a plant, tell us how much it cost and what capacity it is. It's only by clearing the ground and allowing truth to creep into the nuclear debate that anything is going to get built. Nobody is going to fall for Chenobyl era crap from Westinghouse painted green anymore - if anything gets built it will be most likely from some US company subcontracting or buying out to get superior technology that might actually work as advertised.

    14. Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. by MrPhilby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or have various windfarms in various locales around the country/planet. Then link them together with Buckminster Fullers idea for a world electricity grid. Just saying.

  9. green marketing gimmick by Necron69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."

    Translation: the local utility will need to build/buy additional generating capacity to cover the lack of base-load power from the wind farm.

    This is a gimmick that isn't near as 'green' as they want you to believe.

    - Necron69

  10. Hope they Have Startup Capital by StickyWidget · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cause at $1.5-2.0 Million per mile for 30 miles of transmission line, they are looking at around $45-60 Million for 115KV transmission out there. Add another $10 Million to add to the 138KV sub in Dalheart, at least another $15 million for their own substation near the wind farm, plus another $10 Million for interconnections between wind turbines and the wind substation. Settling any right of way issues, better budget at least $5 million. And add in 10% for miscellaneous changes and unforeseen consequences. Plus another 10% for the program management....

    We're talking $100-115 million dollars being spent on transmission line construction, and this all before this project makes any money. Plus, THREE YEARS? I know you are marketing to the venture capitalists, but I don't think so, try 5 years minimum.

    And this is BEFORE costs per wind turbine, which run in the $2-3 Million per turbine due to them being in high demand right now. So that's another $200-300 Million on top of that. Tax credits will shave off almost 70-80% of the purchase price of the turbines over 10 years though. Didn't know we taxpayers were subsidizing this construction, didya?

    WANTED: Investors with serious balls. Require big brass ones, with money to spend in a shite economy. Will not receive return on investment for at least 5 years if ever. This is Texas, Wussies, Pussies, and Wimps need not apply...

    ~Sticky

  11. Use the grid as a big battery. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?

    Sounds like they have excess generation capacity. They sell the power to the grid when the wind is high and buy it from the grid when the wind is too low to supply the local loads. If they buy less than they sell they can honestly say the load is (at least on the average) powered entirely by renewable resources.

    It's not even a cheat: Peak wind power usually occurs when the peak demand on the grid is occurring. The wind farm doesn't just displace more fuel-burning at peak times than the data center causes at offpeak time. It displaces more costly fuels - both in money and pollution potential.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  12. By analogy with "antenna farm". by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    can someone explain to me why server farms and wind farms are "farms"?

    Probably by analogy with "antenna farm" - an old radio term for a site with a number and usually a variety of antennas. (These were typically a radio amateur running on many bands but some commercial and military "farms" also existed.) It was a joking reference to the crowded cluster of antennas "growing up" from the plot of land like a crop of trees or other cultivated plants in a farm or garden.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  13. Re:Wind Farms in Mexico? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... is there any reason why anyone hasn't bought cheap land and/or politicians in Mexico ...

    The land is cheap - but US citizens can't own it.

    The politicians are too expensive: Once you've got some money coming in they want it all.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way