Wind

Wind power is touted as the most economical of the renewables. And it appears to be. But that is not saying much. Wind energy has been highly subsidized by the US and State governments. It receives a depreciation write off of five years as well as a tax credit of 1.8 cents per kWh with credit adjusted for inflation during the first ten years. This means that the US government and you the tax payer kick back to the wind farm owners 1.8 cents for every kWh generated by the machine. And you will do it for ten years. I ask, if wind power competes economically with coal and natural gas plants, why do we have to subsidize it?

Peter Huber, in his book HARD GREEN, SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, apply describes wind power as "Wind farms liter the landscape, kill birds, they are horribly noisy, and they generate only trivial Amounts of power.

Although it is said that the electricity output of wind machines is economically commensurate with coal and natural gas fuelled electric generating systems, there is another catch. The various agencies calculate the cost of wind power using a capacity factor of about 40%. (See the definition of the capacity factor under Renewables.) I have not seen wind farms any where in the US where it is higher than 20 to 25%. The capacity factor (CP) is the ratio of the amount of energy the wind machines actually generated to the amount they could generate if they operated at name plate rating throughout the year. The cost of energy generated by the machines is inversely to the capacity factor. Thus the advertised cost of wind energy will be about twice the advertised price.

Farmers in the Midwest are told that they will have a money making machine if they installed wind machines on their farms. Better than growing corn according to some newspaper articles. I think there will be many Iowa farmers who will be very disappointed when they experience the actual results. If the machines do not produce much electrical energy, the owners do not get a good income stream. But remember the annual capital cost payments to the bank must be made regularly. The machines can cost a million dollars each and are usually financed over thirty years.

In concluding this passage, wind is another relatively high capital cost item that does not produce much energy. Nuclear plants on average have 90% capacity factors. This means that they produce five time the energy per similar capacity system rating. Nuclear plants are not part time energy systems. This advantage will never change. Nuclear plants provide energy at about a third the cost of wind machines.

Bird Deaths Still on Rise at Altamont, Study on Turbines Finds
California Energy Markets - 2/19/08

Projecting the annual number of deaths per turbine and taking into account factors such as researcher efficiency and scavengers that take carcasses, the study estimated bird deaths for the entire APWRA each year of 1,258 burrowing owls, 442 American kestrels, 327 red-tailed hawks, 257 barn owls and 57 golden eagles.

"Texas recently surpassed California as the state with the most installed wind capacity. The Sweetwater expansion, and Forest Creek and Whirlwind projects will add to the remarkable wind energy growth the state is experiencing. In fact, once all of the Siemens units are completed and operating at Sweetwater, the United States will have surpassed the 10,000 MW mark in wind energy, which is a significant milestone,"

With the U.S. Department of Energy's goal of obtaining six percent of U.S. electricity from wind by 2020 and the growing public demand for clean energy, it is expected that wind energy will contribute an increasing amount of the nation's energy supply.

The significant miles stone is not a great deal of energy. I0,000 MWe of electrical energy in the whole country is about the same as that put out by just one nuclear power plant facility i.e. the Diablo Nuclear power plant in California. Big deal. Wind will never amount to much even though every one is on the band wagon.

By George we need renewables even if the state is not a windy state nor a sunny one either. It snows there and solar panels would be under snow a large part of the year. They could put more people to work if Detroit made autos with the same quality as the Japanese Toyotas.

Feb 26 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Chris Christoff Detroit Free Press Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Michigan is "a backwater" in promoting renewable energy such as wind power, and called on lawmakers to quickly approve legislation requiring the state to generate 25% of its electric power from renewable sources by 2025

"This ought to be done by March. If it's not, something is wrong," Granholm told reporters Tuesday morning. "The Legislature needs to understand the urgency of the moment."

Granholm said the state is losing out on thousands of jobs from companies that manufacture wind turbines because Michigan does not have a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that sets future goals for electric power from wind or other renewable sources.

Now it comes out. Florida Power and Light (FPL) has the largest amount of installed wind power in the US. The aggregate capacity factor of their wind machines is very poor.

As of the date August 17, 2006, FPL announced that they have 3,912 MWe of installed wind machines and they produce almost 7.1 million MWh of energy. This is an over all capacity factor of only 21%. A dismal performance that proves wind power is not an economical choice of energy. When the 1.9 Cents per kWh government subsidy no longer exists , wind power will be far from economical.

Florida power and Light's Group Inc. faced the worst weather conditions in 13 years for their wind-energy division. Too little wind cut their profits by $50 million.

Class	Capacity Factor %
3	20
4	25.1
5	32.25
6	39.4

It is important to note that the States in the US having capacity factors of class 5 or greater are in a narrow band extending from the Dakotas down to Texas. The Dakotas have the highest capacity factors, but very few people live there. Thus they have almost no wind machines installed.

East of the Mississippi River has a large share of the population in the US, but only class 3 or lower wind capacity factors. It is not productive or economical to generate electric energy there with wind machines. In the South there are no wind machines. It is easy to see that wind power does not exist where large numbers of people live. Moreover, it is very expensive to transmit energy over long distances and also loss of energy occurs in long transmission lines.

From these facts it is obvious that wind power will never be a major player in providing electric energy in the US.

Nobody enjoys being told about the successes of wind turbines more than I do. The "optimal" global energy economy that I imagine definitely has a place for wind energy in the picture. The point is though that no attempt should be made to overplay the wind card.

According to Jeffrey Michel - an MIT graduate working in Germany - the average capacity factor for windmills in that country before 2007 was 0.17, and in some other regions it was not only lower but much lower. I also found it interesting to hear how impressed some people are with the Danish wind 'experiment'. Perhaps they haven't heard that the price of electricity in Denmark is probably the highest in the industrial world.

A simple formula to estimate the capital cost component of an energy producing machine is the following:

Example: Suppose we have a combined cycle generating machine that had a installation cost of $1,500 per kWe. The capital charge rate is 10%. The capacity factor (CP) is 90%. The cost per kWh from this machine is:

About one and two tenths of a penny per kWh. If the owner of this plant cannot operate this plant above a 50% capacity factor the capital cost of producing energy goes to 4.6 cents per kWh.

Now suppose a Farmer buys a wind farm and is told that he can expect a capacity factor of 37% at his location. But they were wrong and he got only 20%. The wind velocity was lower than they thought it would be. What is the difference in capital cost? Assume the wind machine has a capital cost of $1,500 per kWe and a capitol charge of 10%. The cost of generation a kWh is shown in the table:

Capacity Factor	Cost of a kWh
37%	4.62 cents
20%	8.56 cents

If I am right and the government organizations are wrong, there will be a lot of angry farmers who wished they had stayed in growing corn rather then investing in wind machines.

Remember the capital charge is what the owner pays to the lender. Thus the owner must be able to generate sufficient energy to pay the capital charge plus get a return on their investment. The aggregate capacity factor of the wind machines at the Altamont pass in California is only 20%.

The capacity factor advantage is precisely why the nuclear power plants have such an advantage over the renewables. Most of the Nukes have capacity factors of 90%. Many nuclear plants have hit 100% during some years.

This is funny to me. I have never seen actual data about wind machines with capacity factors as high as class 5. I asked the NREL Lab for such data and none has every been forthcoming.

In order to get a good idea of wind EROEI, one of the variables that has to be dealt with is “capacity factor” or % equivalent full load or full load factor. The wind industry uses the term capacity factor. The problem with analysis is that the realized capacity factor is generally lower than the designed capacity factor.

It is very hard to find more than anecdotal information, but it seems that most on shore USA installations were designed for about 33 to 38% capacity factor. Total USA averaged 24.6% in 2001, and 26.7% in 2002. The most likely reason for the increase is better load matching as part of the learning curve, with some contribution from newer, larger turbines. However, it seems that one should discount designed capacity factors by about 20%.

Table below presents the 2003 performance data from California's wind machine projects.

Resource Site	Capacity	Generation	Capacity
	MW	GWh	Factor
Altamont Pass	576	1071	21.2
Solano	165	102	7.1
Pacheco Pass	16	25	17.8
Tehachapi Range	710	1482	23.8
San Gorgonio	413	893	24.7
State Total	1880	3573	22.2 *

The results for the year 2003 show that the capacity factor quoted by the NREL as 37% does not hold for California. Based on the values in the above table, the aggregate capacity factor of all California's machines is only 21%.

My comment: it is becoming more evident that the cost of generating electrical energy by wind power as estimated by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is too low.

Contrast the wind energy capacity factors with nuclear plants. Here is an example:

For the fourth year in a row, the average capacity factor of Exelon's entire nuclear reactor fleet exceeded 92 percent, which underscores the company's commitment to excellence on behalf of its customers and shareholders," said Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business.

You can plainly see that nuclear plants are full time suppliers of electrical energy. Wind power is just part time.

It has been reported that the total installed wind power in the US at the end of 2006 is 9,100 MWe. With a capacity factor of 25%, the total energy out put of this amount of wind power is equal to that of just one nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site in California.

The transmission infrastructure for wind is not adequate. That is, such places as North and South Dakota are rich with wind resources, but are not able to harness the resource because would-be developers cannot connect to the grid.

Is it feasible to build new transmission lines to major centers such as Chicago or New York City in order to wheel the energy from the Dakotas? In addition to the cost of the transmission lines there is a considerable loss on energy when wheeling it over long distances.

Since there are very little good wind sites in California, Los Angeles will wheel energy thousands of miles from Wyoming. The line losses are so high that this is not a feasible solution of getting renewable energy. But Los Angeles can get that warn fuzzy feeling to say they are getting renewables. Why not from California by putting up their own wind machines close by desert? The answer, California is not a windy state.

The energy Los Angeles will get from the wind machines is a pittance compared to the amount of electric energy they get from the nuclear plants in Arizona and at thee times the cost. But the State of California degrees that there shall be wind power in California, so Los Angeles' attempt to comply. It is all optics.

Moreover, since the capacity factors of wind in California are not above category 3, wind energy production is not competitive without the Federal tax Credit of 1.8 cents per kWh.

After 19 months of commercial wind power operating experience in Ontario, we now have enough information to conclude that wind power in Ontario is a disaster for consumers. Ontario's large wind farms completing one year of service generated on average 29% of what they could have under ideal conditions. Moreover, the little output our wind turbines do generate comes in wild swings from high production to dead calm.

Compared to all available generation technologies, wind power is uniquely intermittent. With one of the most nuclear-dependent grids in the world, Ontario is poorly suited to host wind power. Connecting wind power to the grid is also costly. The first of many high-voltage transmission investments mainly directed at wind is currently pegged at $635-million.

The McGuinty government is currently buying wind power for 11 cents per kilowatt hour -- about double the current price homeowners pay for reliable, available-on-demand power. A little competition would mitigate this. Wind power's lack of overall value has not prevented our politicians from embracing it. But getting 12% of our power from a costly, unreliable and so far unpredictable source is trouble consumers don't need. Wind power will only burden Ontario consumers.

Wind for Power Has Big Hurdle: It Doesn't Blow on Demand

Wind, almost everybody's best hope for big supplies of clean, affordable electricity, is turning out to have complications.

But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electric grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it - even when it is in greatest demand.

In Texas, as in many other parts of the United States, power companies are scrambling to build generating stations to meet ever- higher peak demands, generally driven by air conditioning for new homes and businesses.

But power plants that run on coal or gas have "to be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity," said William Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The reason is that in Texas, and most of the United States, the hottest days are usually the least windy. As a result, wind turns out to be a good way to save fuel, but not a good way to avoid building plants that burn coal. A wind machine is a bit like a bicycle a commuter keeps in the garage for sunny days. It saves gasoline, but the commuter has to own a car anyway.

Here is part of an article that exposes wind power's output. We should hear more of this type of complaints in the future.

Wind Farm Blown into Court; Lawsuit Filed to Stop Project at Twin Groves

Nov 03 - State Journal Register Industrial Wind Action Group, a nationally based grass-roots effort, claims companies are exaggerating the amount of megawatts wind farm projects can produce.

Because wind blows hardest during winter months and infrequently during summer months, when demand is the greatest, wind farms are not a significant source of reliable energy.

"(Public opinion) has put wind on par with coal, nuclear energy and biomass in its ability to produce electricity," "We'll end up with tens of thousands of turbines and still have to build nuclear and coal plants."

Of the 396 megawatts of electricity Twin Groves is expected to produce at maximum capacity, enough to power about 120,000 homes, But the prospective owners estimated, only about 33 percent of that figure will be generated because of mechanical limitations and a lack of a reliable power source - wind.

Wind Power During California's heat wave did not perform well as can be seen by the figure. The State's load climbed steadily during the week, wind power output decreased steadily during that time. Wind did not do its job as a peaking power input device. Intermittent power producing devices cannot be counted on to provide energy during these critical times.

Costs for cement, copper, steel and resin -- all used in the manufacture and installation of wind turbines and related equipment -- have jumped in the past two to three years, resource planners and wind developers note.

Two years ago, the power council estimated the cost of power from new power projects to be between $42 and $53 a megawatt hour. An updated report, completed earlier this month, put estimates in the range of $45 to as much as $100 a megawatt hour.

These projections, known as "levelized" costs, take into account capital investments and operating expenses, as well as federal subsidies.

Here's another way to look at it. Not long ago, a large wind farm represented a capital investment of roughly $1 million a megawatt. Now, it's between $1.3 million and $1.7 million. That means the cost of a 100-megawatt wind farm would cost as much as $170 million, up from $100 million.

My comment: At a capital cost of $170 million for 100 megawatt wind farm, this is $1,700 per kWe which is more then that predicted for a nuclear plant, and wind per kWe installed produces about 4 times less energy than a nuclear plant..

Study takes air out of wind power's sails: Windmill generators in Europe have problems with creating electricity when it is needed

Based upon a breadth of data drawn from European utilities in half a dozen countries and other reports, the study by ABS Energy Research in London puts a different spin on an energy source being hailed from Long Island to Lisbon as the possible savior from global warming and dependence on foreign oil.

In one of its more dramatic illustrations, the study notes that western Denmark, which has several thousand wind turbines on land and offshore, was forced in 2004 to export some 85 percent of the wind-energy its mammoth turbines generated, often at a loss. That happened despite the fact that wind-power represents only 20 percent of the country's total power production, ABS said.

Worse, the carbon-emissions reducing potential of that power was compromised because two of the countries it exported to -- Norway and Sweden -- reduced their hydropower production sources to accommodate cheaper wind power. Meanwhile, Denmark's primary power was still delivered by fossil-fuel plants, ABS said, effectively "nullifying" wind power's chief benefit.

"I think the actual savings in emissions is very low," said Euan Blauvelt, research director at ABS who conducted the study and has written the report for the past three years.

At bottom is the elemental reality of wind power that all power companies must come to grips with as they build more turbines.

My comment: They will have to come to grips in the US with this problem which means wind power will be limited in capacity.

LADWP Board of Commissioners Approves Long-Term Purchase of Wind Power with PPM Energy, Inc.

As part of its commitment to supply 20 percent of its retail energy from renewable energy sources by 2010, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Board of Water and Power Commissioners today approved a long-term purchase agreement to buy 82 megawatts of wind power annually over the next 16 years. That amount will add approximately 1 percent to the City's renewable energy supply, increasing the generation portfolio to approximately 6.5 percent renewable energy.

The agreement between the LADWP and PPM Energy, Inc. (PPM) provides for the purchase of 234,000 megawatt-hours of wind power annually, enough power to serve approximately 39,000 homes each year. LADWP will purchase the wind power from the Pleasant Valley Wind Energy Center, located in Uinta County, Wyo., starting July 1 pending approval by the City Council. LADWP has agreed to pay a fixed amount of $63/megawatt-hour for the term of the agreement. Over the 16-year period, LADWP estimates that the energy delivered will cost between $236 million and $280 million.

This is a report about Ontario, Canada's power situation. It reveals what goes on about wind power.

Overblown wind: Wind power's inadequacies are hidden by a veil of government subsidy and inadequate data on performance and cost

At a price tag of $700-million for 395 MW of power (the renewable energy package includes about 40 MW of hydro and biomass schemes), the capital cost is about $1.75-million per MW. By comparison, Trans-Alta's Sarnia gas-fired plant cost about $1.13-million per MW. Then correct for the low uptime of the wind turbines, offset by the fuel costs of gas-fired plants and it turns out that wind power is expensive. Ontario is paying 8 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the output from new wind plants. It pays Ontario Power Generation 3.3 cents per kWh for nuclear, hydro and fossil-fuel base load, and 4.95 cents per kWh for peak hours.

Notice the comparison of the cost of energy from various sources. Wind energy is very expensive.

"The wind power industry could best be described as “ad-hoc”, “cottage”, “on the first level of the learning curve” or “a marginal curiosity”. The predominance of these “nascent industry” supports have tended to obscure basic economic and operational realities to the extent that premature equipment failure, excessive insurance claims and elusive profitability have become hallmarks of the industry. In short, it has not, in the past, been an industry able to attract the interest of serious institutional investors on an arm’s length basis for the long term."

Wind farms are really industrial installations of vast proportions with turbines as tall as a 30-floor building and whirling blades twice as long as a city bus. Critics claim they're a source of noise pollution and work poorly-even dangerously-at low temperatures, flinging ice deposits like projectiles. Occasionally, blades shatter into shrapnel or come loose and go flying for great distances. The California Energy Commission reported an annual average kill of 200-300 redtail hawks, 40-60 golden eagles, and 7,000 other migrating birds at wind turbine sites in southern California.

Wind generators work best where the wind speed averages more than 12.5 mph. A near constant flow of nonturbulent wind is necessary year-round to avoid damage from sudden wind bursts.

Because wind speed is never constant, a wind generator's annual energy production never lives up to its nameplate rating. Even a well-placed wind turbine might generate only 35% of its rated capacity. A 1,000 kW. And an alternative power system would still be necessary on the days when there was no wind.

Here are some facts about wind power, according to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN):

ˆ Each windmill is typically more than 300 feet tall or higher than many football stadiums, including skyboxes.

ˆThe rotor blades stretch from one 10 yard line of a football field to the other 10 yard line and turn at 100 miles per hour.

ˆ Their flashing red lights can be seen for 20 miles or more and their thumping noise can be heard a half mile away.

ˆ Windmills produce power only about 40% of the time. (My comment here: I have not seen any operating data that shows they produce even 40% of the time.)

According to the Independence Institute, "Wind farms cost about $384,000 more per megawatt of power than coal plants—or about one-third more." Federal tax subsidies for wind energy will cost taxpayers about $4.5 billion over the next five years.

Invenergy to Pay Landowners Within Sight of Wind Turbines

Oct 28 - The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Already the largest wind power project in state history, the Forward Wind Energy Center this week chalked up another first: It will become the first wind development to compensate property owners who have to look at wind turbines but haven't sold easements to put them on their land.

Chicago-based Invenergy will pay landowners who are within one-third mile of turbines, under a proposal accepted in the past week by town boards in Byron and Oakfield in Fond du Lac County.

Environmental groups sue Alameda County, Calif., over windmills

Nov 8 - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Erin Sherbert The Record, Stockton, Calif. Two environmental groups have sued Alameda County, saying the county has failed to fully protect the thousands of birds killed each year by the Altamont Pass windmills.

The Golden Gate Audubon Society and Californians for Renewable Energy filed the lawsuit last week. The lawsuit claims the county violated state law by not ordering an in-depth environmental report before renewing 29 permits for windmills in the hills that straddle San Joaquin and Alameda counties.

An environmental report likely would show that the wind-energy companies can do more to limit the number of birds killed each year by the fast-turning turbine blades, environmentalists said.

"They decided to forgo doing the report, and that's totally illegal," said John Gabrielli, an attorney representing Californians for Renewable Energy.

Environmentalists like renewable wind power, but many don't because the bird kill is quite high. This includes may golden eagles. It has recently been decreed that the wind machines in the Altamont pass in California will not be allowed to operate during the bird mating season.

Wind Energy Area Proves Costly for Birds

Jul 11 -ALTAMONT -- Daily Breeze When it comes to wind power, few places are more productive -- or more deadly to birds -- than this gusty stretch of rolling hills 50 miles east of San Francisco.

My comment: The Altamont Pass is not efficient or productive. The capacity factor is not even 20%. The wind only blows in the summer season. It is a terrible wind site.

But the Altamont, where more than 5,000 windmills line the hilltops, has also become a death trap for thousands of migrating birds that get chopped up in fast-rotating turbine blades as they fly through or hunt for prey in this mountainous region between the San Francisco Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley.

An estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds are killed each year in the 50- square-mile Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Of those fatalities, between 880 and 1,300 are federally protected raptors such as burrowing owls, red-tailed hawks and golden eagles, according to a study released last year by the California Energy Commission.

"Altamont is killing more birds of prey than any other wind farm in North America," said Jeff Miller, a wildlife advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Incredible numbers of raptors are being killed there, and it's hard to believe it's not having effects on the populations."

The bird killings have provoked a fight between the windmill operators and environmentalists who were once reluctant to take on an industry that provides an eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels blamed for air pollution and global warming.

Wildlife advocates have sued nine companies that run wind farms there and appealed Alameda County's decisions to renew the turbine operating permits without requiring measures to reduce bird collisions.

Winter Shutdown Approved for Wind Farms

Sep 23 - United Press International To reduce bird deaths, some 4,000 aging wind turbines in California will be idled temporarily, and some will be scrapped and replaced with newer models.

Alameda County officials approved the measure to shut down thousands of turbines for two months this winter, following a four-year study that showed the electricity-producing windmills in the Altamont Pass killed some 4,700 birds a year -- including California golden eagles -- reported the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune Friday.

Companies operating the wind farms say the new requirements -- incorporated in their new permits -- will cost them millions of dollars.

Environmental groups say the measure does not go far enough and that the number of bird deaths could be reduced by 50 percent immediately if the 350 most lethal wind turbines were shut down -- and seasonal shutdowns of remaining machines from mid-November through February were enforced

My comment: As if the capacity factor in this wind site is not bad enough at less than 20%, it will now be worse. This site is not a viable site from the standpoint of energy production.

In Mane the Audubon Society filed an appeal of a state wind farm permits for 30 turbines in Mars Hill, because of the lack of comprehensive studies on how many birds or bats the blades would kill. Many turbine developers in the new England States say they are subject to unreasonable calls for studies about bird mortality near turbines, while no one is calling for similarly studies for existing fossil fuel or nuclear plants.

This is a typical reaction of environmentalists. Robert Kennedy Jr. is an official in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Robert is a proponent of wind power as well as other renewable systems. But don't put them close to where he lives. The most contentious wind farm plan is a 130-turbine proposed for offshore Nantucket Sound. Shoreline property owners strongly oppose it. It spoils their view. Robert Kennedy lives there and he too opposes it. It is OK to build wind farms, but NIMBY. Build it in someone else's back yard.

Ted Kennedy and other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation oppose the wind project, but he has denied that personal considerations are involved. (Of course not, Kennedy likes renewable projects in your back yard,)

NANTUCKET, Mass. From his family's island vacation home here that fronts the sea, John Kerry relishes the chance to hook into his windsurfing gear and sail as far as 35 miles across Nantucket Sound to Cape Cod. On the campaign trail, when Kerry talked about U.S. energy independence, he cited the wind as part of a massive, new effort to develop U.S. renewable-energy sources. "I believe we can and should produce 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020," Kerry said in a June 2003 speech on energy delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Twenty by 2020 now that's a clear vision for America."

But Kerry's vision is not yet clear on whether he supports the largest wind-power project ever proposed in the United States. The project would erect 130 turbine-topped towers in the middle of blustery Nantucket Sound, a site touted by the developer as the best wind-power site in New England. So far, Kerry has balked at endorsing the project, saying he is waiting to review an Army Corps of Engineers draft report expected to be released later this fall.

Wind farm on prairie splits landowners

A wind energy farm under construction on a Kansas prairie has split landowners in the area.

The Elk River wind farm is expected to cover 8,000 acres in the Flint Hills, 50 miles east of Wichita. Opponents of the project say that it will disturb one of the last significant stretches of tall-grass prairie on earth.

"Man, I hate that to be destroyed," Larry Patton, president of Protect the Flint Hills, told the Kansas City Star. Patton's family has owned land in the area for five generations.

Pete Ferrell, who has signed a lease with PPM, the Scottish company operating the wind farm, says the turbines will be both attractive and harmless.

"The grass will be just as green, the cattle just as fat, the water just as clear," he said. (Pete does not realize the amount of trucks and other machines that will penetrate the land required to install and maintain the wind machines.)

Plans for the $190 million project include 100 362-foot wind turbines generating 150 megawatts of electricity.

My Comments: Notice that a 150 MWe wind farm requires an enormous land area. A 1000 MWe nuclear plant takes very little land area in comparison to a 150 MWe wind farm. In the New England States they assert that there is not enough space for wind farms. In place they intend to gather and burn enormous amounts of wood.

Off shore in Ireland a 25 MWe wind farm has been installed by General electric. The 25 MW offshore wind power plant consists of seven GE Energy 3.6 MW turbines sited on a sand bar about six miles from the shore. It is the largest wind power plant ever built at sea. Each giant turbine’s three-blade rotor tip-to-tip dimension exceeds the size of a soccer field and each one stands approximately 32 stories tall. Power from the wind plant is transmitted via undersea cable to an electrical substation in Arklow Harbor. The project is fully operational and feeding 25 MWe to the Irish electricity grid.

Airtricity of Ireland, a renewable energy company that is co-developing the project, introduced the plant as Phase I of a 520 MW offshore project that it plans to develop in the next few years. “Ireland is 90 percent dependent on energy imports.,” said Eddie

’Connor, chief executive of Airtricity. “We are working with GE to demonstrate that the Arklow Bank project, even in this first phase, can already make a viable contribution to future energy self-sufficiency for this country.” The Arklow Bank is a sandbank located approximately 5.5 miles off the coast of Arklow, a town 40 miles south of Dublin. Years of meteorological testing revealed that Arklow possesses some of the strongest and most reliable winds in all of Europe. Each GE Energy 3.6 MW turbine stands approximately as tall as a 32-story building. Photo courtesy of GE Energy, ©General Electric Company.

Notice the enormous area and size of wind machines to get only 25 MWe of electric power capacity. They did not mention the capital cost of the system nor how they will maintain these turbines in the ocean.

This looks like a good place to put wind machines. It does not seem to have the NIMBY problem that was experienced in the East. California should also put wind machines off shore since they have may miles of ocean shore line.

Texas to Lead U.S. In Offshore Wind Energy

Dec 15 - Ocean News & Technology On October 24th, the same day that Hurricane Wilma landed in Florida, another form of wind energy was announced in Austin, Texas, by Jerry Patterson, state Land Commissioner.

"Coastal wind power has come to the United States and found a home in Texas", Patterson said.

Texas has sold a lease for an 11,000 acre tract in the Gulf of Mexico that backers believe could become the first wind energy farm along the U.S. coast.

The wind turbines planned by Galveston Offshore Wind, a subsidiary of Wind Energy Systems (W.E.S.T.) of New Iberia, LA., would be 7 miles off Galveston Island.

"The economics work, and they work well, and we're excited about it", Patterson said. "The environmental aspects are very positive."

Construction is expected to be completed in five years at a cost of about $300 million. W.E.S.T. plans to construct about 50 wind turbines, expected to produce 150 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 40,000 homes.

The Texas proposal would face fewer obstacles. The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which Patterson heads, oversees territory up to 10 miles from the coast, limiting federal involvement. Texas is the only state with such a provision thanks largely to the insistence of Sam Houston when he negotiated the terms of Texas joining the United States in 1845.

To help move ahead on offshore wind power, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently teamed up with the Massachusetts Technology Cooperative (MTC) and General Electric - who makes wind turbines - to establish a framework for offshore wind power development. The resulting report proposes forming a national coalition to address responsible development of U.S. offshore wind resources. Meanwhile, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has shifted the lead authority for such offshore renewable energy projects to the Minerals Management Service (MMS), part of the U.S. Department of Interior. MMS is required to issue new regulations by May, 2006.

Backup Power systems must be in standby when the wind does not blow. Once wind is generating more than about 20% of the electricity that the system is delivering in a given hour, the system operator begins to incur significant additional expense because of the need to procure additional equipment that is solely related to the system's increased variability. This means that the utility must have back up to pick up load when the wind power level varies. It is expensive to have power equipment idly standing by. That duplication of capacity not only diminishes the environmental benefits of wind, but it also increases the cost of wind power while adding an extra burden on the transmission system. This is like pulling an extra auto in case your operating auto should run out of gas.

New England wind farms are likely to be smaller, experience lower wind speeds, and cost more to install than those in the terrain of the Northern Plains states.

December 31, 2004 I came through the Altamont Pass in California and saw a whole field of wind machines without blades or generators. On the other side of the road there were many wind machines where the blades and generators were lying on the ground.

Some cases as shown here they just leave the faulty wind propellers and generators on the ground and walk away from it leaving the farmer with the mess. Get guarantees from a company who will probably be in business in the future.

Currently there is 6,740 MWe of wind power machine capacity installed in the US. Only 5.7 % of that total is located east of the Mississippi river.

Public debate over wind farm still blows strong after 7 years: Opponents say the farm will produce a tiny amount of energy, but supporters tout it as a good source of clean power

The Highland County proposal is part of the wind energy industry's expansion from its traditional home in the West to the ridgelines of the Appalachian Mountains, where hundreds of turbines have been constructed in recent years and hundreds more are proposed.

Officials with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say the turbines could kill a significant number of bats, songbirds and raptors including endangered and threatened species.

The DGIF said if the project is approved, mitigation and monitoring measures should be required, such as stopping the turbines during peak migration periods and installing deterrents that use noise and light to keep wildlife at a distance.

Opponents say the turbines, apart from harming wildlife, would hurt tourism and cause other environmental and economic damage while generating a negligible amount of subsidized power.

The 400-foot turbines would generate 39 megawatts for the regional electricity grid. Supporters say they would serve about 15,000 homes, but opponents say the power would be enough for only a few thousand homes.

MY comments: If the system is to shutdown during certain parts of the year, it would only support a few thousand home as the last paragraph estimates. If not shut down for birds, etc it will produce about enough energy for 6,000 homes, not 15,000.

BACK IN THE U.S. BTM partner Per Krogsgaard said GE's leverage in the U.S. and the strong euro have made it difficult for European companies to compete in this country, though a stronger dollar could make them more competitive. What's more, as the only major American manufacturer, an almost unheard-of advantage, GE has easy access to developers and owners, as well as enormous clout in the power sector. It's also unlikely that competitors will make a better product; industry observers say the enormous turbines put out by top manufacturers are very similar.

GE is providing more than 60% of the approximately 2,500 megawatts [MW] of wind energy capacity expected to be installed in the U.S. this year. The American Wind Energy Assn. [AWEA], a trade group, projects that at the end of 2005 the U.S.'s wind energy capacity will be about 9,200 MW, enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes.

In large part this power is generated by windmills with a generating capacity between 1 and 3 MW each. However, the word "windmill" barely seems adequate to describe these generators, with blades 131 feet long attached at a hub 250 feet above the ground, and they are not universally popular. Detractors say wind farms are ugly and not cost effective.

TAX CREDITS ARE FUNDAMENTAL. Historically the installation of wind turbines in the U.S. has fluctuated with the Production Tax Credit. This government incentive provides wind farm owners with a 1.9-cent credit per kilowatt hour generated on their facility for the first 10 years of operation. With the installation of 1 MW of capacity typically costing up to $1.5 million, over 10 years the credit can be good for about a third of the installation cost, according to the AWEA.

When the credit isn't in place, the industry sits on its hands. First enacted in 1994, the credit has expired three times, and each gap brought on an installation dry spell. Most recently it lapsed between the end of 2003 and the fall of 2004. According to the AWEA, installations dropped in the U.S. from 1,687 MW in 2003 to 389 MW in 2004.

With the credit back in place -- and extended through 2007 as part of last summer's energy bill -- there's a promising window for growth. AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher explained that the credit is "a fundamental part of the way you finance these projects." [See BW Online, 9/20/05, "Fresh Heat for Energy Policy."]

GOING OFFSHORE. In another boost for wind power, Massachusetts, Texas, and New York are each exploring the possibility of building offshore wind farms. There are currently none in the U.S. While capable of harnessing powerful and consistent sea breezes, offshore projects require major expenditures to plant windmills on the sea floor and connect them to infrastructure on land. These difficulties make it unlikely that offshore farms will become the country's primary source of wind power in the short term.

Economics of wind power. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) offers an example of a wind farm calculation for the economics of a 10 MWe wind system. Be very careful if you should use it. The capacity factor they assume is 37%. I have not seen this high of a capacity factor reported at any location in the US. In my opinion they use a capacity factor of almost twice of that which is actually obtainable. This produces an economic return of about one half of that the owner will realize based on the NREL calculations. Also a 10 MWe wind farm would cost about $15,000,000. A lot of money to put on a questionable system. If the turbine blades should fail you could lose the farm. And in California, blade failure is rampant.

Moreover, In 2003, wind energy represented barely more than one-tenth of 1 percent of all energy consumed in the United States, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. By 2025, EIA predicts, wind energy will represent a little more than one-third of 1 percent of all energy consumed. Conclusion: Wind will never be a significant contributor to the electric energy supply in the US.