Here's an article about a new "wind farm" in California:

Calif. wind farm a model for the future

This project sounds pretty good, if it works out as promised. The cost of the electricity generated by these turbines is said to be competitive with that generated by other methods. Some of the problems with other wind turbine projects -- killing migrating birds, causing visual pollution -- seem to be dealt with here.

To be debated: How promising is the future of wind power? Will it always be a minor source of energy, or will it play an important role in the future?

The California wind farm advancement shows how, if we concentrate our resources on a problem, we find solutions.

This month's Wired magazine has an article about using similar tech to reap tidal energy. It's being done in Scandenavia.

We ought to be leading the world in this arena, but we are not. Too much coal! Half our electricity comes from burning coal, 2 trillion KWH.

But all that burning coal does is boil water. Geothermal anyone? We've sure got enough drilling rigs to bring that about.

I believe it will continue to play a minor role for a few geographic reasons:

1. It's difficult to find a location with consistent winds at the right speed to make the power source consistent.

2. The space consumed per megawatt generated is likely higher than traditional power plants. Land is valuable. The "not in my backyard" crowd would crow over any large-scale placement of these turbines.

Another part of #2, above, is that your passing a lot of electricity near living creatures. Will they get cancer? Studies of EMF are inconclusive, but anecdotal enough that folks don't like to live near high-tension power lines. It's too early to know if this would be the case here, but something to consider.

I like the geothermal idea as well.

Wind power can and will become increasingly important as a minority power source, I'm sure, but it will never be a mainstay for the simple reason that, in the majority of cases, the windiest places tend to be a very long way from where most people live and work, so the physics of electricity transmission are a barrier.

And the places where turbines are sited, even if in these windiest places (Antarctica & the Southern Ocean, from memory), are sometimes calm, at which times no power would be generated.

I think geothermal energy is promising, but again, not everywhere is well suited to using it. The same goes for wave power (which has some of the same limitations as wind anyway) and tidal power (which does not), and more traditional hydroelectric power, which aren't much use if you're more than a few hundred miles from a large body of water.

Going back to transmission, I can't help but wonder if there isn't some mileage in investigating another way to transmit energy in bulk over long distances. At the moment, electric cables (be they overhead or underground) dissipate a lot of the energy generated as heat. And transporting the fuels themselves to power stations closer to the point of use itself uses a lot of energy (road and rail transport, pumps for pipelines, etc.).

Perhaps something based on fibre-optic principles could do the job more efficiently and mean that we could all use solar power transmitted from wherever on the planet happened to be sunny at the time. (A pipedream, I know, but it can't hurt to ask the question).

The fact that wind power is totally renewable, economically viable and environmentally friendly makes it the most aggressively pursued 'green power' technology in Germany, if not the world. Presently they are producing wind generated electricity at about 3 times as the United States. One of the reasons that the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the Bush administration is that Germany is running circles around us when it comes to 'green power' technology. Wind power is becoming more cost efficient, in fact there was a study published in, Science, that claims that it is actually cheaper then coal!

Sure coal and nuclear power production are the heart of the power grid, for now. But wind power is growing by about 50% a year. Will it play an important role in the future? I'd say the role of wind power will be vital, However, it will only be viable if:

1) Other alternative power generation technologies (solar, geothermal, biomass...etc) are explored, developed and expanded.

2) The United States is committed to the future of alternative power and puts its money where its mouth is.

Bottom line, fossil fuels will go the way of the dinosaur ( I'm so punny). 'Green power' technologies are the future and wind is the most viable source available.

I believe wind power will become much more of an option as more research is done with how the energy is collected and stored. I have read some very interesting articles on how power collection research for solar is very close to making it a feasible choice. Instead of only getting minor trickles of power the "battery" receptacles are able to more fully absorb and transform the solar energy. Alternative fuel source research is coming along very nicely. Fuel cells for one. While I wish that they were closer to being able to affordably deployable 10 to 20 years really aint so bad I guess. Honda is very close to having a unit more than capable of supporting the home. Hell supporting the home is a polite way of saying run what you want when you want. They envision an affordable production to sale price of around 3 to 4 thousand dollars for such a unit in around 15 years.
I need to go through my collection of Wired magazine and collect some of the articles pertaining to such research. Great fuel for future debates.

I have just read an article about wind farms with Birds and bats flying into the propellers of the machines so yes these are a slightly dangerous source of energy towards the animals. "do you think that we should switch to hydrogen cell power, Pleas reply to me at EDITED OUT PERSONAL INFORMATION thank you"

Locke1

I think it is very promising. In Colorado Springs, you have the option of getting wind power. It comes in "blocks" of 100kWatts and costs $3 extra per block. The average household uses about 500kwatts per month so we got 5 blocks. Of course the actual power coming into your house is still mostly generated by coal burning plants. You're just paying to encourage your power company to buy more wind power on the open market.

How major a player it becomes in the future depends a lot on how other alternative energy research goes. I have big hopes for fusion energy...virtually free energy from water! Fund ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor!

I don't think wind power will work because of the inconsistency in the amount of energy given off and the fact that the energy needs of the future will be even higher than now, and I doubt wind power efficiency will ever be able to address those energy needs alone.

One energy source I don't think too many people know about is methane hydrates. There are crystallized deposits of methane hydrates in the sea around the US, and they are relatively easy to obtain. The thing about them is that their only waste product is water, and they have hundreds of times more energy produced per gram than coal or oil. Those should be able to easily provide for the world's energy needs, there is a lot of it in the sea, it is easily obtained, and discharges few harmful waste products.

Wind power, low head hydro, geothermal, all combined will not supply even a noticeable amount of the energy needs of our nation until we learn to conserve, or use less of the energy. It will take some very high energy costs before we can bring our country to be less of an energy glutton.
Conservation is a hobby to me. I use less than most to show that it can be done, but even those who know that it can be done are not trying the same methods. And none of the methods are difficult in the least.
Wind energy works in some locations, same with geothermal, and low head hydro, and others are often location sensitive as well. We should use them where it is feasible, but I still feel that conservation is the best, and cheapest approach.

Great article thanks. I like the way this "plant" addresses alot of the old problems of Wind power.




Actually, I think that is addressed well with this program. The towers can be built on farms and ranches without limiting the land use under them (for farming and ranching). They pay the farmers annually for the use of the land as well.

Also, Farms and Ranches tend to be on more open / flat land which allows for more wind.





This is a problem. However, even if this program is limited to distributing power to rural areas it is significant in that it takes large areas of the country and effectively makes them independent of the old power grid (they are still connected, but their power has a local source).

Now, if we can develop tidal power (which is interesting as well) we might be able to make large sections of the coast lines independent as well.

Different alternative sources can address different needs and areas of the country.



Maybe in the future. Right now, fiber can't care the level of power needed to be viable for this use. I have heard of the concept of microwave transmissions as a possibility. One theory is that we could use giant solar collectors in space to get the power and transmit it to the surface via microwave. This type of technology is along way off (heck can you imagine what would happen if such a beam was mis-targeted?). But it sound promising. It also has the promise of being able to deliver power to anywhere, even the most remote spots on the planet.

Geothermal is interesting. I have only read about this as an alternative source of heating and cooling for homes. Anyone have a link for the use of this alternative for energy production?

When it comes to alternative energy development, we have the ability to do this on a house by house level now. You could build a house with solar and / or wind power and geothermal heating right now. One problem is, municipal codes and HOAs for one thing. They tend to dislike large things like windmills. Another problem is cost.

A friend and I saw a show detailing different types of alternative energy homes. We also learned that if you generate more then you use (or can store) the excess end up back at the power company and they have to pay YOU for it.

We figured out a house using available tech 6 years ago that generated enough energy in excess to storage that the power company payments would pay the property taxes and water / sewer fees (depending on where you live) and be completely self-sufficient. We even took an idea we saw where gray water in the house was filtered and then fed into an in the home irrigation system for tons of small plants intergraded into the home. The small plants looked good and helped clean the homes air. We also used geothermal for the heating and cooling, supplementing it with electric heat / cooling.

The problem with out project was cost. In the middle of missouri, where land is very cheap the project would have cost us about 600,000.00 to build a 4 bed, 2 bath, 3 car garage home that had these systems. For some that doesn't sound like much but in Lynn Missouri (where we looked at doing it) a 4 bed 3 bath house was on 3 acres was listing for $38,000.00 at the time and in move in condition. What that means is that the bulk of the project cost (about $550,000.00) was the cost of construction, not the land.

People are willing to examine these things for their own homes until the sticker shock hits. We could majorly reduce the need for power plants if we could get more homeowners and businesses to generate their own power. But the startup cost of that program has to come down for it to be viable. We figured our start up costs would be paid for in abut 20 years. But the average person stays in a home for 7 years or less. We have to get that cost down significantly before the majority of America will consider it for their homes.

People want to be environmentally conscience in general, but not if the cost of it keep them from eating regularly (the morgage for that project would have been about 4000.00 a month!!).

(wow-- 100th post!!!)

How promising is the future of wind power? Will it always be a minor source of energy, or will it play an important role in the future?

I think wind power is a great alternative to coal and nuclear electrical plants. I do think that it needs to be blended with other types of energy, conservation efforts, and design, however.

Some ideas:

Passive solar design for homes and offices, solar power, building materials that maximize conservation, compact flourescent light bulbs, energy star appliances, etc.

Efficient use of enegy (conservation) is a key here.

Neat site on Energy Statistics from which I gleaned this:

In 2002 the US recieved its energy from the following sources: 39.3% Petroleum; 23% Natural Gas; 22.2% Coal; 8.1% Nuclear; 5.9% Renewable

and we used it in the following sectors: 21.4% Residential; 17.9% Commercial; 33.2% Industrial; 27.5% Transportation

This wind power plant seems to be a step in the right direction, especially with government subsidies. I normally disdain subsidies, however I view this one as less of a subsidy for wind power than an attempt to even the playing field with the massively subsidized &/or externalized costs of fossil fuels.

TANSTAAFL notice: Geothermal energy cools the ground from which it receives energy, which may or may not have a significant effect on the local area. 'Geothermal' heat pumps cool the ground in winter and warm the ground in summer. They may not be placed particularly close together (certainly not as close together as houses can).