Energy Dept. Wants Big Wind Energy Technology In All 50 US States

coondoggie writes: Bigger wind turbines and towers are just part of what the U.S. needs in order to more effectively use wind energy in all 50 states.That was the thrust of a wind energy call-to-arms report called "Enabling Wind Power nationwide" issued this week by the Department of Energy. They detail new technology that can reach higher into the sky to capture more energy and more powerful turbines to generate more gigawatts. These new turbines are 110-140 meters tall, with blades 60 meters long. The Energy Department forecasts strong, steady growth of wind power across the country, both on land and off shore.

Comments

Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who spent some years in county government where various wind projects have taken place, one thing is true... Without a shell game of tax dollars shuttling in and out with many transfers of project ownership, there would be NO turbines standing. You do realize that even when those monsters are turning in the wind, they usually are just lubricating internals and not generating?

Re:Follow the money

[fgouget]

Without a shell game of tax dollars shuttling in and out with many transfers of project ownership, there would be NO turbines standing.

Do you really expect us to believe that power plants burning coal or gas don't involve any political shenanigans and don't benefit from any subsidy?

You do realize that even when those monsters are turning in the wind, they usually are just lubricating internals and not generating?

Wrong: The EROI for wind energy is between 20 and 25, meaning they produce 20 to 25 times more energy than has been used for their construction, operation and decommission.

Question on EROEI

[Okian Warrior]

Can someone help me understand EROEI ("Energy Return on Energy Input").

All the research on future sources of energy (that I can find) say that we're doomed as a civilization because the EROEI for renewables isn't as large as that of fossil fuels.

Okay, EROEI is the energy you get out minus (or divided by) the energy you put in, I get that. Fossil fuels take relatively little energy to gather, and generate lots of energy so their EROEI is rather large.

Wind and solar require a larger energy input per energy out, so it's EROEI is smaller but still greater than 1, even after accounting for mining the raw materials.

I'm not clear how the economic conclusion is reached that solar and wind cannot power our civilization. If we have enough rooftop solar and wind farms to generate all the energy we need as a civilization, and if there's enough left over to make *more* solar and wind installations over time (to replace the warn out bits), then why does EROEI matter?

Assuming that EROEI is a net energy positive (with a reasonable margin of error), why does it even matter at all?

(Also note: world population growth is slowing, and is steady or decreasing in all industrialized nations (including the US if you deduct immigration). The standard economic model assumes infinite consumption, but is that assumption correct? Is there be an upper limit to personal comfort in terms of energy use? Or at least diminishing returns? Would finite population and finite consumption invalidate the standard economic model?)

Re:Question on EROEI

[Irate Engineer]

EROI still matters as that basically tells energy investors where they will get the biggest return for their money.

The trick is that the EROI for fossil fuels is decreasing as all the easy reserves have been tapped. We're mucking around with high tech dynamically positioned rigs for deep water drilling, oil sands, etc... that require more energy and effort to obtain. The EROI for coal has been depressed artificially due to environmental regulations and CO2 rules, but there are still ample reserves. The EROI for wind and solar should be relatively flat, even rising slightly if the technologies improve.

At some point the fossil fuel EROIs will fall below the EROIs for renewables. It's just a matter of when. Whether you invest in renewables now or later really depends on your perception of the outlook for these energy sources.

The thing to keep in mind is, low EROIs mean low net power production. An EROI of 1.01 is energetically feasible, but it means you are only getting a net surplus of 0.01 units of energy for your 1 unit of effort. That 0.01 is what you get to power your society with. If you are using a technology with an EROI of 1.01, it means you will need a LOT of that technology to power society. You will actually need nearly 2X a LOT of that technology as you need nearly the same amount of power to simply make the technology.

Re:Won't someone think of the birds.

[ShanghaiBill]

That energy has to come from somewhere and blocking the surface wind reduces the air velocity and increases the amount of heat at ground level.

Trees also block the wind. So a simple solution is to require anyone erecting a windmill to cut down a tree to compensate.

A more complicated solution would be to improve math and physics education, so even dimwitted people can figure out that the amount of energy windmills extract from the atmosphere is utterly inconsequential.

Re:Won't someone think of the birds.

[compro01]

Plus it kills a lot of birds.

Incorrect.

Re:In other news...

[Cyberax]

Are you really going to get up at 3AM to do laundry? I doubt it.

People on Kauai, HI do this all the time - by setting a timer on a washing machine (electricity prices 8x the national average are a good motivator) . You can also pre-heat water during the nighttime or use solar water heaters during the day.

Simply not true

[stomv]

Since 1978, utilities have been obligated to purchase electricity from qualified facilities (QFs) under a law called PURPA. Net Metering isn't a federal requirement, but PURPA sure as heck is.

Re:Tornados?

[MrL0G1C]

Too right, we should also make sure there are no lamp posts, telegraph poles or trees because someday they may be thrown about by a tornado.

Re:Won't someone think of the birds.

[Beck_Neard]

Oh don't give me your logic and facts, everyone knows wind turbines have a huge impact on the atmosphere but billions of tons of carbon dioxide doesn't affect the atmosphere at all