Category Archives: Wind Power

Wind Energy Generating Capacity – Doubling Every 4 Years

According to WorldWatch, Vital Signs, 2007-2008, in 2006 we had 74.2 GW of installed wind capacity and 8.6 GW of installed solar worldwide, and 370 GW of installed nuclear capacity. If we double the capacity of Wind and Solar twice we’ll be at 331.2 GW. Double it again, we’re at 662.4 GW. By the 4th doubling, we’re at 1.325 terawatts.

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, installed wind power is doubling every 3 or 4 years – from 74 GW in at the end of 2006, to 120 GW in 12/08 to 322 in Dec. 2013. The rate will slow slightly – wind capacity will increase “a modest” 22% per year, which is modest compared to the increase of 28% per year over the last 10 years. Installed wind powered electric generating capacity will double in less than 4 years (see: Global wind energy markets will continue to boom, March 11, 2009), and quadruple within 7 years.

Republican Alternative Energy: Coal, Oil, & Nuclear Power

“The Republican Road to Recovery” according to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Thaddeus McCotter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John R. Carter, Pete Sessions, Kevin McCarthy, David Dreier, Roy Blunt, who signed it, “Keeps Energy and Fuel Costs Low.” It mentions wind and solar, but focuses on coal, oil, oil shale, offshore drilling, and nuclear power.

The document says “Republicans want energy independence with increased development of all natural resources, including renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.” It doesn’t mention “global warming.” It mentions the term “greenhouse gases” once, stating, incorrectly, that nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. Mining, processing, and transporting nuclear fuel, and managing radioactive wastes, produces tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases.

It points out that “Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry … have long fought a renewable wind project in waters off of Massachusetts…. Cape Wind, would provide 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket island. “

The document focuses on coal, oil, and nuclear power. These are not clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources. Ultimately, therefore, it attempts to “greenwash” coal, oil, and nuclear power.

the Administration has already taken steps to hinder the leasing of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is estimated to hold at least 19 billion barrels of oil, and Democrats have long championed the prohibition on drilling in the Arctic Coastal Plain – which is estimated to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Furthormore, Democrats continue to block the procurement of advanced alternative fuels from sources such as oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology. U.S. Oil shale alone could provide about 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.

Republicans also support opening the Arctic Coastal Plain to energy exploration and development.

And despite expert agreement that nuclear power is reliable, clean, and affordable without producing air pollution or greenhouse gases, Democrats continue to block its development.

Republicans realize that there are better solutions to restore freedom and security in our energy market. Republicans recognize the importance of exploring for American oil and gas in an envionronmentally-sound manner and support immediately leasing oil and gas resources in the OCS through an an expedited and streamlined procedure.

Republicans support removing government barriers to new nuclear reactors as long as they meet strict security and safety criteria.

Americans realize that the future of energy is in alternative and renewable sources. In order to promote the development of renewable and alternative energy, Republicans support promoting the leasing of federal lands which contain alternative energy such as oil shale. … spurring a market by using fuels derived from oil shale, tar sands, and coal.

Nuclear Fusion in 10 or 20 Years

Thomas Friedman is right in “The Next Really Cool Thing” in The New York Times, March 15, 2009, when he concludes:

At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.

Note that he pointed out ‘the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal.

Friedman also said:

“I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard…. we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.”

Fusion may be the game changer. “Energy Gain” means we get more energy out than we put in. The prototype will cost $10 Billion – enough for 5 GW of wind capacity, and 1.53 GW of PV Solar. And fusion is at least 10 years away, maybe 20, maybe 50. We know how to build wind and solar. (On the other hand it takes 10 years to build a nuclear fission reactor.)

But pushing carbon below 350 ppm is a problem that can’t wait 10 years. According to the World Watch Institute’s Vital Signs, 2007-2008, the 6.5 billion humans on the earth are using the natural resources of 1.25 earths. This can’t go on.

Obama and Gore v Inertia

Popular Logistics is not a political blog. We focus on Policy – Energy Policy, Health Care Policy, Emergency Management Policy. We heard a lot of good ideas in President Obama’s speech Tuesday night – Sustained Growth; Shared Prosperity. We agree on Solar and Wind – we need to substantially increase our clean energy infrastructure. However, we respectfully disagree on coal. It is not clean. The technology does not yet exist to economically sequester carbon, and Moore’s Law will not apply. We know we can meet Gore’s Challenge – Clean and Green by 2018, and we know that would be good for America and the world. And we believe that Rush Limbaugh, who said “I hope Obama fails” is unpatriotic, and in fact, guilty of treason.

225 GW of Wind Capacity – $2,43 per watt – $546.75 billion
75 gw Solar $6.5 per watt = $487.50 billion
300 GW of capacity = $1.03 trillion

This is good for the economy, and good for the planet.

Brownwashing Wind Power

PSEG, one of New Jersey’s electric utilities, and a member of the consortium that is building Garden State Offshore Energy, the 350 megawatt (MW) wind farm in the Atlantic, 18 miles south east of Atlantic City. Their ads on billboards, buses, etc., have a picture of an offshore wind farm,

Offshore Wind Farm

and copy that reads:

We’re putting these where they generate electricity, not controversy.

At PSE&G we’re pursuing the development of wind energy 17 miles from the New Jersey coast. Far offshore, where it won’t be an eyesore. This 350-megawatt wind farm will be virtually invisible from land. After all, our commitment to the environment is only matched by our commitment to the communities we serve. It’s just one of many renewable energy in consumer conservation programs we are developing. Our state has aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gases and has passed legislation that recognizes the important role of utilities in meeting them. At PSEG., we welcome the challenge. We’ve long been dedicated to providing our customers with safe, reliable electric and gas service. Today were equally dedicated to promoting a sustainable energy future, and providing it. To learn more about what we are doing, and what you can do, visit PSEG.com/windfarm.

They seem to be saying “we know this stuff is ugly, but you won’t see it.” Do you think they may be trying to nudge the public – saying ‘look at this; it doesn’t really spoil the view.” Especially if you think about the alternatives – nuclear and fossil fuels.

Continue reading →

Wind Power Is Low Cost Electricity

Gianluca Baratti, writing for Bloomberg Press notes “Because their fuel is free, wind turbines undercut traditional generators that burn coal, natural gas and oil.” I would point out that wind turbines Use No Fuel – there is no resource that is consumed when a turbine, spinning in the wind, generates power.

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) — Spanish windmills owned by Iberdrola SA and Endesa SA may generate a record amount of electricity next week, slashing local power prices to three-year lows.

Spanish Windscape, copyright (c) Bloomberg, 2009

An Atlantic Ocean storm is forecast to blow winds averaging 17.4 miles an hour across the peninsula. Lighter winds, at 13.6 miles an hour, were enough to set the previous record output three weeks earlier. The extra supply then cut power prices 11 percent.

“This will push the spot market lower next week,” Manuel Palomo, a Citigroup Global Markets analyst in Madrid, said about the storm. Palomo covers Spanish generators Iberdrola, Endesa and Acciona SA, which operate most of the country’s wind farms.

Spain and Germany, the world’s biggest wind-energy markets after the U.S., have changed the dynamics for wholesale power trading by forcing sellers to read weather reports. Because their fuel is free, wind turbines undercut traditional generators that burn coal, natural gas and oil.

film black swan trailer

Baratti can be reached via email to gbaratti “at” bloomberg.net.

Clean Energy: Johnny Appleseed Would Approve. And It's The Law.

I published this in Business Week Online Feb. 4, 2009. While I like my headline better, and there is a nuance – or maybe a paradigm shift – in “alternative fuels” vs “alternatives to fuel” – I like their edits – Common Sense for the Common Good – And their headline is more powerful, imperative, and succinct.

Green Energy: Our Future Depends on It

BusinessWeek reader L.J. Furman sees alternative fuels as common sense for the common good

Continue reading →

Clean Coal, My Ash

On Dec. 22, 2008, a billion gallons of sludge covered 300 acres, and spilled into the Clinch and Emory Rivers when the retention pond burst at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Steam Plant. That’s 1,000,000,000 gallons of toxic soup containing Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Selenium and other toxics and carcinogens. Tennessean.com, Knoxvillebiz.com.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s law firm, Kennedy, Madonna, LLP, and the Levin Papantonio Law Firm have joined to investigate the Tennessee Coal Spill on behalf of property owners living in the impacted area. For more information call 888-435-7001 or click here.

According to TVA spokesman Gilbert Francis, “Most of that material is inert. It does have some heavy metals within it, but it’s not toxic or anything.” However, according to the EPA, coal fly ash and sludge contains carcinogens and high concentrations of heavy metals. Furthermore, “concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold” AP, NYTimes, Yahoo.

Continue reading →

The Bahamas, New Jersey, Recycling, & Clean Energy

People say “all politics is local.” People in The Bahamas, New Jersey, Europe and California have more or less the same solution – re-usable shopping bags – to the same problem – plastic bags in landfills. Personally, I favor charging for plastic bags, which rewards people for doing the right thing and penalizes them for doing the wrong thing. It seems fair, given that we are paying, in our taxes, for burying the plastic bags. I would also like to see more cellulose based plastics.

Another common problem is converting our electric grid to run on electricity generated from clean, sustainable systems. Based on our brief conversation, it seems that the U. S. has four advantages over the Bahamas: Net Metering, Economic Incentives, Rulings in the Supreme Court, and possibly, our President-Elect, Barack Obama.

Continue reading →

Alternative fuels safer, and the law

In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled the federal Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon emissions unless it presents scientific proof that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global climate change. On Nov. 13, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board ruled it would do so. We need alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power, if for no other reason than to obey the law.

Traditional hydroelectric plants harness the energy in waterfalls. New designs harness the energy in tides, waves and ocean currents. Wind farms harness wind energy. Solar energy systems harness sunlight. Geothermal systems use heat from within the earth.

The sun will shine and the wind will blow regardless of the presence of solar panels and wind turbines. By harnessing a process rather than consuming a resource, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other clean, renewable, sustainable technologies generate power without fuels, and without greenhouse gases, mercury, radioactive wastes, other pollutants and without the cost of fuel.

Saving the shore from global warming will help the economy. And it’s the law.

This was published as a letter to the editor in the Asbury Park Press, Friday, 12/5/2008.

Carbon Sequestration – Unavailable Today, Costly Tomorrow

In Carbon Sequestration R&D Overview The US DoE says:

Using present technology, estimates of carbon sequestration costs are in the range of $100 to $300 per ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal of the program is to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions avoided by 2015.

McKinsey and Company says the DoE is, well, let’s say optimistic. In their study, Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics, McKinsey & Company says that by 2030 carbon capture and storage (CCS) costs should come down to around $43 to $65 per tonne of CO₂ abated. According to the report, CCS demonstration projects will have a significantly higher cost of $86 to $135 per tonne. Early full commercial-scale CCS projects—potentially to be built soon after 2020—are estimated to cost $43 to $65/tonne CO₂ abated.

Of course it’s expensive. It has to be. The basic idea of fossil fuel is we take hydrocarbons out of the ground, and burn them, releasing energy. The problem, which we have just recently noticed, inconvenient as it is, is that the second law of thermodynamics applies. “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” While we are burning coal, oil, and gas, and using some of the energy, we are creating carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water, and other stuff. Every pound of carbon in every gallon of gasoline and every lump of coal, becomes a pound of carbon in the atmosphere. There’s also mercury in coal. Nuclear power produces no carbon during the power generation phase, but when you factor in the fuel and waste management cycles, the environmental footprints are enormous.

We can have power with ZERO Carbon Emissions: “The answer,” as Bob Dylan once said, “is blowin’ in the wind.” With solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro, with clean, sustainable energy systems, we HARNESS APROCESS rather than CONSUME A RESOURCE. With conservation, “Negawatts,” we use less energy, on an ongoing basis. The carbon emissions avoided cost is $ZERO. There is no carbon released into the atmosphere. No Fuel. No Fire. No Smoke. No Radioactive Wastes. No Mercury.

SIERRA CLUB KILLS KING COAL

In a decision just made public ( full text PDF ) the EPA has ruled that it will abide by the 2007 Supreme Court decisions and limit carbon emissions from new and proposed coal plants – essentially killing off the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the foreseeable future. According to the Sierra Club “The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.”

What’s next? Nuclear Power? Auto emissions? Carbon Dioxide is Carbon Dioxide, whether from a coal plant, a tail pipe, or the nuclear fuel cycle. Will we see plug in hybids? Plug in hybrids running on biodiesel and methane? Charged by PVSolar and Wind power? I think it is a matter of when, not if. Toyota led the way with the Prius – the status car of the decade for people who care about the planet. New taxis and limos in New York City and elsewhere must be hybrids. Toyota is capturing the ‘Black Car’ market while Ford, with the Escape hybrid is leading the yellow cab market. In MOTOWN GM announced the Volt, a worthy successor to the EV1, and now Ford announced the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan hybrids.

Continue reading →

ENERGY POLICY & PUBLIC HEALTH

There really is no such thing as “Clean Coal.” Mining coal destroys mountains, and often kills the miners. Burning coal releases tons of carbon into the atmosphere and the oceans, and even if you could sequester the carbon, burning coal releases other pollutants, including mercury into the biosphere. The mercury makes its way into fish. This is why people, especially children and pregnant women, should not eat a lot of tuna or swordfish. Wind, solar, geothermal, ocean current, and “negawatts,” on the other hand, really are clean energy. Offshore wind turbines don’t release pollution. On the contrary, they create artificial reefs, which enhance fish habitat. This is also good for fishermen, the economy, etc.

Obama, McCain on Energy – Solar, and Wind, Oil and Nuclear

John McCain and Barack Obama both talk about energy independence. Both also talk about the need to drill for oil offshore. Obama says oil companies should use their leases, or lose them. McCain once put the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, off-limits, “for now.” But that was before he picked Sarah “Drill Baby Drill” Palin for V. P., Now he calls her an “Energy Expert” and says “Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in America.”

Palin wants to drill in ANWR. She also doesn’t understand the science that has been used to study global warming, preferring to believe that it doesn’t exist.

Obama reminds us that drilling won’t help much and won’t help at all in the near future. Obama and McCain also talk about solar and wind – but Obama talks about about building a new energy economy. And McCain has a history of voting against solar and wind because he’s against subsidies. He’s for nuclear power, even tho the nuclear industry relies on subsidies. Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that Obama knows what he’s talking about.

McCain says nuclear power is safe, nuclear submarines are safe. He wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2035, and another 55 after that. He wants to plan and build a total of 100 new nuclear plants. Continue reading →

quiet revolution: elegant solution(s) to wind-power problems

One of the basic problems with wind power capturing wind regardless of direction. Ask any sailor. A number of turbine designers have solved this problem with vertical turbines, which will turn regardless of wind direction. Quiet Revolution, a London-based firm, has one model in production and producing power all over the United Kingdom. Installations of the Q5 turbine, according to quiet revolution, numbered 25 in June of this year, and were expected to top 100 by the end of the year. Quiet Revolution’s FAQ

describes the advantages of the QR5, which sounds ideal for locations like lower Manhattan: coastal, with a pre-Revolutionary street grid (i.e. narrow streets) and extremely tall buildings, which conspire to amplify windspeed. From the quiet revolution FAQ:

What are the advantages of quietrevolution turbines?

The qr5 is a vertical axis wind turbine that we have designed specifically for the built environment:

* it is much more appropriate for winds near and around buildings, which are characterized by gusty windspeeds and constantly shifting wind direction.
* it is significantly quieter because the blade tip speed is lower.

* it is more easily integrated in buildings and on towers.
* its active control system uses gust tracking to maximize power harnessed from the wind.

QuietRevolution has a number of other systems in development. We think we might like to see a much smaller model, because they’re so nice to look at. Aesthetic considerations aside, we often ask about how new energy technologies can be scaled up; – if one our goals is to decentralize the grid, lots of relatively small and local production will be essential.