The answer is blowin' in the wind

[ldzppln]

Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page D07

The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption.

But in a report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of wind-turbine installation.

The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by 2030 to meet rising demand.

The report noted that a big expansion of wind-power generation would also cut the amount of water used by the electricity industry by 17 percent by 2030.

The report said that, under "optimistic assumptions," expanding wind generation to meet 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 would cost nearly $197 billion, but it said that most of that would be offset by nearly $155 billion in lower fuel expenditures. There would be, it said, other offsetting positive effects.

[-mmm-]

Wind energy is great. Around here wind turbines are sprouting up all over the landscape, as many farmers, towns, schools, etc. are using it to help cut down on rising energy costs. Near the MN/SD border is an area called Buffalo Ridge thats one of the windiest spots in North America, and its getting covered pretty good by wind turbines. It's nice for me cause there's now something to look at other than farmfields when I gotta drive to Sioux Falls

One of the big problems though is the outdated grid system, and Im paraphrasing something I dont quite fully know about, but basically the big problem is that rural areas like western MN/eastern Dakotas cant readily send all that power they can generate to nearby cities like Minneapolis or Chicago or Kansas City cause of the way the grid is setup.

[rich76]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Wind energy is great. Around here wind turbines are sprouting up all over the landscape, as many farmers, towns, schools, etc. are using it to help cut down on rising energy costs. Near the MN/SD border is an area called Buffalo Ridge thats one of the windiest spots in North America, and its getting covered pretty good by wind turbines. It's nice for me cause there's now something to look at other than farmfields when I gotta drive to Sioux Falls

One of the big problems though is the outdated grid system, and Im paraphrasing something I dont quite fully know about, but basically the big problem is that rural areas like western MN/eastern Dakotas cant readily send all that power they can generate to nearby cities like Minneapolis or Chicago or Kansas City cause of the way the grid is setup.

and the power companies will keep it that way for as long as humanly possible......bleah

[SiteWolf]

lol....a guy I work with claims his sister in law once asked this question....and was serious when doing so:

"Is the reason it's so windy in South Dakota because of all those wind generators?"



That said....guess where I live- just west of the Buffalo Ridge area where the number of turbines continues to grow. Other wind 'farms' are planned in this area and others around South Dakota...much to the chagrin of some who find them 'unsightly'. Studies have shown that there is enough wind in South Dakota alone to generate some 10% of the ENTIRE COUNTRY'S need for electricity. Whether that's true or exaggerated, the reality is...we've got a lotta wind and a lotta potential in generating electricity.

And yes...a HUGE problem in all this is....how to store all the electricity generated and/or get it to places that need it. But another one is that places that need it (like the Twin Cities) aren't as open as they could be to BUY that excess electricity. You'd THINK, tho, that selling all they could LOCALLY would be an answer....but I don't know that they do that, either.

[P562045]

I am trying to remember back when there were brownouts in California didn't the electricity come as far away as Washington state or even Texas and this was just another reason why the electricity bills went through the roof in California.

Then of course when you "freeze" the price of anything so it could not going any higher than price x then eventually the people providing the electricity in this particular case are eventually going to want to recoup their loses right?

I wonder just how much it would even cost just to put up a power line from the eastern Dakotas to even Minneapolis would cost?

This is just one of the upfront costs and I am not even imagining other costs associated from getting the electricity from one place to another and in some cases it sounds like pretty long distances.

[P562045]

So it sounds like the grid would have to be updated in some way to get the electricity where it needs to be at least in some cases.

That initial money has to come from somewhere. People wonder why we don't have more energy sources than we have already and the upfront costs associated with any new technology people are just not willing to pay more initially to get new technology going.

A good example of this we should all want a hybrid car or another type of car like it because it saves on fuel costs but they do cost more and the extra cost involved will eventually be made up at least a few years down the road in most cases but cars do depreciate in value over time as well.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by P562045

I wonder just how much it would even cost just to put up a power line from the eastern Dakotas to even Minneapolis would cost?

This is just one of the upfront costs and I am not even imagining other costs associated from getting the electricity from one place to another and in some cases it sounds like pretty long distances.

Im not sure just how much. I know that they were trying to build a transmission line from a proposed new coal burning plant in eastern South Dakota to go into Minnesota, but a judge here in MN struck that down. And the story I saw on it doesnt say specifically why, but it alludes to environmental concerns.

[ldzppln]

The report said that, under "optimistic assumptions," expanding wind generation to meet 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 would cost nearly $197 billion

There's the upfront money. Put an end to an illegal occupation or two and it could be easily funded.

You'd think between wind and solar energy we could put a real dent in the use of fossil fuels consumed in the US and across the world. Some folks would just have to learn to live with those unsightly turbines and ugly solar panels.

[hork]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

There's the upfront money. Put an end to an illegal occupation or two and it could be easily funded.

we could also stop paying farming subsidies to not grow crops, use that money to give tax breaks to companies that invest in the construction of these turbines. we could further fund it by abolishing certain federal agencies (because this thread has stayed civil i'll not name the one I have in mind) which have proven to be nothing but money eaters and complete failures and use that funding toward these energy sources.

there's money to be had, the problem is (and we all know it) that the oil companies own many of our politicians and they're not about to sacrifice their monopoly on our way of life.

[P562045]

And don't even get me started on environmental concerns is a precious reason not to produce more energy.

The ones I can think just off the top of my head right now are the reformulating of gas to say the air is cleaner.

Not building oil refinery in decades.

And good old ethanol the cleanest burning fuel on earth but of course who cares that we have not found a way yet to produce it with things that we don't eat.

There are advancements in this area but it will take a while I saw them just the other day on the weather channel growing algae as an alternative to producing ethanol.

And of course keeping Alaska and America's coastlines pristine as well.

And people ask why gas prices this time of year go up.

[Dawgcountry]

I thought the whole wind farm issue was from PETA, i.e. that it could kill birds...