Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear

A surprising aerodynamic innovation in wind turbine design called the 'wind lens' could triple the output of a typical wind turbine, making it less costly than nuclear power.

NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology. 

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.

Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).

The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).

Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

Well, such a breakthrough has been made, and it's called the "wind lens." 

-

Imagine: no more dirty coal power, no more mining deaths, no more nuclear disasters, no more polluted aquifers as a result of fracking. Our entire society powered by the quiet "woosh" of a wind turbine. Kyushu University's wind lens turbine is one example of the many innovations happening right now that could in the near future make this utopian vision a reality.

Yes, it's a heck of a lot of wind turbines (about 2,640,000) but the U.S. with its endless miles of prairie and agricultural land is one of the few nations that could actually deploy such a network of wind turbines without disrupting the current productivity of the land (Russia and China also come to mind). It would also be a win-win for states in the highest wind area — the Midwest — which has been hard hit by the recession. And think of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be created building a 21st century energy distribution system free of the shackles of ever-diminishing fossil fuel supplies. 

It's also important to point out that growth in wind power capacity is perfectly symbiotic with projected growth in electric vehicles. EV battery packs can soak up wind power produced during the night, helping to equalize the curve of daytime energy demand. So the controversial investment currently being entertained by President Obama to pipe oil down from the Canadian Tar Sands would — in my utopian vision — be a moot point.

It is indeed a lofty vision, but the technology we need is now in our reach. And think of the benefits of having our power production fed by a resource that is both free and unlimited. One downside often cited by advocates of coal and gas power is that wind turbines require a lot more maintenence than a typical coal or gas power plant. But in a lagging economy this might just be wind power's biggest upside — it will create lots and lots of permanent jobs, sparking a new cycle of economic growth in America.

MNN.com

How would you spend $7 billion?

Two proposed energy projects (each with a $7 billion price tag) present two very different directions for America's future. Which would you choose?

 

I attended the National Clean Energy Summit 4.0 today in Las Vegas, hosted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and had the chance to talk with the developers of one of the most ambitious renewable energy projects ever conceived in the United States — the TransWest Express (TWE) Transmission & Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project led by Anschutz Corporation.

 

The proposed roughly $7-8 billion project would deliver wind power generated by 1,000 2-3 megawatt (MW) turbines located in the gusty and ironically named Carbon Country, Wyoming, via a new super DC (direct current) transmission line to a hub in southern Nevada. If successful, it would produce 9 million MWh's (megawatt-hours)* of zero-carbon, zero-pollution electricity per year — roughly enough to power the entire city of Los Angeles ... forever. No mining. No drilling. No pollution. Just clean energy from a free resource.

 

The cost per MWh (about $80) would be significantly lower than existing coal power (about $90) and that is without any federal or state renewable subsidies. So for those of your skeptical about my last post in which I posited that wind power would soon be cheaper than coal, this project makes it a reality.

 

DWE + Sierra Madre would also create as many as 18,000 jobs (12,688 in the wind farm and 5,000+ in the transmission project) helping the U.S. to regain its lost foothold in two important growth industries (wind power and next generation energy transmission) while capitalizing on what some are calling a renewable "Kuwait" for America — a pocket of Class 7-10 winds that are unrivaled in the world. The new transmission line would also help to bolster the stability of the entire western electric grid.

 

What a contrast with the Keystone XL pipeline! This proposed $7-8 billion project, expected to hit President Obama's desk in the next few weeks for approval, would largely benefit one foreign company (TransCanada) forcing the U.S. to pay a premium for oil that no one else wants because it is so expensive and so 'heavy,' requiring much more refinement than typical oil.

 

It would criss-cross some of the most important waterways in North America, including the Missouri River and the Ogallala Aquifer (which supplies 30 percent of the nation's agricultural freshwater) putting millions of people in harm's way. Astonishingly, the State Department recently found no evidence of risk for the proposed project despite the fact that the first Keystone pipeline has had a record 12 spills since it began operation in 2010.

 

The two often cited benefits of Keystone XL is that it is a job creator and would help us get off foreign oil. TransCanada's job projections (500,000.. really??) have been debunked by many people. The State Dept. puts it at something closer to 4,000-5,000. Regarding foreign oil, Kestone XL will indeed supply about 510,000 extra barrels of crude per day which sounds like a lot until you realize that this would only meet about 2.5 percent of our daily needs... and at what cost?

 

A barrel of tar sands oil costs about $30 to produce (versus about $5 for a barrel of Saudi oil). And beyond the nearly incomprehensible environmental devastation it causes — 65 square miles of toxic tailings posts, cleared boreal forests, and polluted rivers — it is incredibly resource-intensive. Tar sands production uses three barrels of freshwater for every one barrel of oil produced and requires enough natural gas to heat 3 million Canadian homes, making it four times more carbon polluting than regular oil (PDF).

 

And for those of you who say I'm comparing apples and oranges -- oil barrels and kilowatt-hours -- I have this to say. Energy is energy, and wind power right now has become a viable alternative for powering our vehicles. In the lobby of NCES sat the brand new Coda sedan (I saw the prototype in China and blogged about it last year). It looks just like a Camry but goes up to 120 miles on a single 34 kWh charge. A typical U.S. driver would charge her Coda 100 times in a year (3.4 MWh's total), which means that the DWE + Sierra wind project could theoretically power about 2.9 million cars* -- roughly the same as could be fueled by the Keystone XL pipeline.**

 

It really does feel like a line has been drawn in the tarry sand. Our nation faces a choice. Which way do we want to go? Nearly 600 people have been arrested protesting the proposed Keystone XL (and many more have signed up). They're clear about what they want for the future of our country. How do you feel about it?

 

Also on MNN: Auto expert Jim Motavalli likes the way Vice President Biden is talking about renewables

 

*9.8 million MWh's: 2.5 MW per turbine x 365 days x 24 hrs x 45% = 9,855 MWh's x 1000 = 9.8 million MWh's. There would be transmission losses but those would be greatly reduced by the new DWE line, so I do not factor those losses in here. A Coda sedan requires 3.4 MWh's per year so 2.9 million cars. 

 

** 3 million cars: 510,000 barrels x 365 days x 19.5 gallons gasoline per barrel = 3.6 billion gallons gas. The crude coming from Alberta Tar sands has far lower productivity so I assume here about 50% normal production or roughly 10 gallons per barrel, yielding 1.8 billion gallons of refined gas per year. A typical car at 20 MPG averaging cars and light trucks (PDF) going 12,000 miles per year = 600 gallons per year for the average driver. 1.8 billion/600 = 3 million cars. Jet and diesel fuel production are not included in these calculations.