COMMENTS: 5
Wind: Embracing America's Fastest-Growing Form of Renewable Energy
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Using the wind to produce electricity has, for many decades, been little more than a footnote to energy production in the U.S. Wind turbines were something one dreamed about building while flipping through the back pages of Popular Mechanics. Even a few years back, wind was considered a minor power source, despite success stories in several European countries. But that's all changed.
In 2007, 35 percent of all the new electricity generation installed in the U.S. -- over 5,200 megawatts (MW) -- was wind. Its growth is second only to natural gas. Then in September 2008, the U.S. surpassed Germany to lead the world in wind energy production. With rising oil costs, improvements in turbine technology and a more stable public energy policy, U.S. wind energy production has doubled in just two years. It now provides more than 20,000 MW of generating capacity, enough to serve 5.3 million homes or to power one million plug-in hybrid vehicles. As 2008 comes to a close, industry will likely have added 7,000 to 7, 500 more megawatts. And now that industry incentives have been extended with the recent passage of a new energy bill, wind power is on track to reach the 30,000-MW milestone sometime in 2009.
Big Possibilities
Power production aside, wind is one of the most environmentally friendly energy sources. Estimates by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) show that wind currently generates as much electricity as nearly 30 million tons of coal or 90 million barrels of oil. In 2008, wind displaced about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 5.8 million vehicles off the road. In 20 years, if we reach the industry goal of supplying 20 percent of our national energy from wind, it will be the equivalent of taking 140 million vehicles off the road. Unlike oil, wind will not pollute our waterways or contaminate our national wildlife refuges. Unlike coal, it doesn't release mercury into the air or leave permanent, ugly scars across the landscape. And unlike nuclear, there is no spent fuel to bury or protect from terrorist threats.
In addition to the obvious environmental benefits, there are other compelling arguments for promoting wind power. First, the resource is huge. "There's something like 600 gigawatts of wind that can be developed in the U.S.," says Jim Walker of Enxco, a company that develops wind farms in North America. That's about 60 percent of our current electricity consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration.
And the cost is already competitive with gas. Says Walker, "Wind energy can be developed for under 10 cents per kilowatt hour, about the same as gas." This assumes the continuation of production tax credits that contribute about two cents for each kilowatt-hour produced. Perhaps most impressive is that wind is one of the few energy sources that can be brought online quickly. Says Walker, "You can build a 400-million-dollar, 200-MW wind plant in nine months. And you know exactly what it's going to cost." You can't say that for a nuclear plant or even one of the newer coal plants that are designed to capture pollutants.
The build-out of wind has some important economic fringe benefits, too, including a lot of new jobs. The U.S. Department of Energy says that achieving the goal of drawing 20 percent of our national energy needs from wind by 2030 will create about 500,000 jobs in the U.S. and contribute more than $1.5 billion to local communities annually.
"If you take your old manufacturing plant that used to sell gears to automakers and convert it to sell gears to wind turbine makers, you're going to have major job growth," says Greg Wetstone, senior director of governmental and public affairs for AWEA.
Those stories are happening right now. Since the beginning of 2007, 42 new or expanded wind energy manufacturing factories were announced in the U.S. "I don't think you can point to this kind of growth anywhere else in the American economy," says Wetstone. "Wind turbines are inherently very large devices with 300-foot towers and 125-foot blades. It's incredibly difficult and expensive to transport them, so there's a natural advantage to manufacturing them domestically. And when you have a turbine manufacturer, you also need about 400 component suppliers."
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: henderson on Feb 3, 2009 3:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In populated areas, they can be very detrimental to humans and animals, and they change the landscape FOREVER. In spite of all the glib talk of "deconstruction" when they wear out in 15-20 years, what guarantee is there that the company who installed them will even be around?
Many counties are forging ahead with putting them within 1000 feet of residences, in spite of warnings. They will DEFINITELY lower property values. And when some were installed near me recently, the company reneged on paying taxes!!!
They need to be under some kind of control. Until then, they are just another horrific scam perpetrated on rural dwellers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I do not agree....
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimCummings on Feb 4, 2009 8:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author notes in passing that noise is not an issue unless you live very close to turbines. In fact, these 300-foot towers can easily spread audible noise for over a half mile. Many residents whose homes are between a half mile and mile from turbines report bothersome audible noise, especially at night, but in some places, keeping them inside during the day. I live in a rural area where the interstate a mile away, hidden by hills, is easily audible; turbines are no different, though their noise can be more disruptive due to fluctuations.
I am not at all opposed to new wind farm development, but do feel that we need to have sufficient set-backs to assure that rural communities do not have their soundscapes forever altered by the appearance of industrial development in their midst. Just stay a mile or more away from homes....
Offshore is great, especially the new floating technologies: closer to demand, more consistent wind.
The low-frequency impacts mentioned also need to be considered, though it appears likely that reactions to low-frequency sound are more individual, and may be based on pre-existing sensitivies; Pierpont suspects a vestibular system response underlies the "syndrome" she finds in some people (not all by any means) living within a mile or so of wind farms.
For a non-advocacy overview of wind turbine noise, with links to more detailed studies and advocates on all sides of the issue, see
http://www.AcousticEcology.org/srwind.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulC on Feb 5, 2009 4:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CO2 - a single 1.5-MW wind turbine displaces 2,700 metric tons of CO2 per year compared with the current U.S. average utility fuel mix, or the equivalent of planting 4 square kilometers of forest every year. In addition, manufacturing wind turbines and building wind plants generate only minimal amounts of CO2 emissions...when these emissions are analyzed on a life-cycle basis, wind energy’s CO2 emissions are extremely low—about 1% of those from coal, or 2% of those from natural gas per unit of electricity generated. In other words, using wind instead of coal reduces CO2 emissions by 99%; using wind instead of gas reduces CO2 emissions by 98%.
Through 2050, the 20 percent wind plan would remove 4,000 MillionMetricTonsEquivalent of CO2 from the air.
Health - almost half of all Americans live in counties where unhealthy levels of smog place them at risk
Water - Fossil fuel plants are responsible for 48% of all total water withdrawals. 1 GigaWatt of wind power saves about 2 billion gallons of water consumption.
Land Use - Coal mining is estimated to disturb more than 400 thousand hectares of land every year for electricity generation in the United States, and destroys rapidly disappearing wildlife habitat. 20 percent wind would disturb as little as one quarter of that amount. An important factor to note is that wind energy projects use the same land area each year; coal and uranium must be mined from successive areas, with total disturbed area increasing each year. In agricultural areas, land used for wind generation projects has the potential to be compatible with some uses because only a few hectares are taken out of production, and no mining or drilling is needed to extract the fuel.
Bird Deaths - current wind energy generation is responsible for 0.003% of human-caused avian mortality. Even with 20% wind, turbines are not expected to be responsible for a significant percentage of avian mortality so long as proper precautions are taken in siting and design.
Public Opinion - Of those polled in a study conducted by Yale University in 2005, more than 87% want expanded wind energy development (Global Strategy Group 2005). Only a minority of the U.S. population appears to oppose wind energy.
Sound - When the wind picks up and the wind turbines begin to operate, the sound from a turbine (when standing closer than 350 m) is 35 to 45 decibels (dB). This sound is equivalent to a kitchen refrigerator running.
Capital Cost -
Land-Based Wind: $1,730/kW in 2005 and 2010, decreasing 10% by 2030.
Coal: $2,120/kW in 2005
Nuclear: $3,260/kW in 2005
Total Cost - Out of a total energy expenditure of over $2 trillion, adopting the 20% Wind by 2030 Plan would cost only $43 Billion more than the No New Wind Plan, a trivial difference.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Craig Collier on Feb 8, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: henderson on Feb 3, 2009 3:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In populated areas, they can be very detrimental to humans and animals, and they change the landscape FOREVER. In spite of all the glib talk of "deconstruction" when they wear out in 15-20 years, what guarantee is there that the company who installed them will even be around?
Many counties are forging ahead with putting them within 1000 feet of residences, in spite of warnings. They will DEFINITELY lower property values. And when some were installed near me recently, the company reneged on paying taxes!!!
They need to be under some kind of control. Until then, they are just another horrific scam perpetrated on rural dwellers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I do not agree....
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimCummings on Feb 4, 2009 8:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author notes in passing that noise is not an issue unless you live very close to turbines. In fact, these 300-foot towers can easily spread audible noise for over a half mile. Many residents whose homes are between a half mile and mile from turbines report bothersome audible noise, especially at night, but in some places, keeping them inside during the day. I live in a rural area where the interstate a mile away, hidden by hills, is easily audible; turbines are no different, though their noise can be more disruptive due to fluctuations.
I am not at all opposed to new wind farm development, but do feel that we need to have sufficient set-backs to assure that rural communities do not have their soundscapes forever altered by the appearance of industrial development in their midst. Just stay a mile or more away from homes....
Offshore is great, especially the new floating technologies: closer to demand, more consistent wind.
The low-frequency impacts mentioned also need to be considered, though it appears likely that reactions to low-frequency sound are more individual, and may be based on pre-existing sensitivies; Pierpont suspects a vestibular system response underlies the "syndrome" she finds in some people (not all by any means) living within a mile or so of wind farms.
For a non-advocacy overview of wind turbine noise, with links to more detailed studies and advocates on all sides of the issue, see
http://www.AcousticEcology.org/srwind.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulC on Feb 5, 2009 4:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CO2 - a single 1.5-MW wind turbine displaces 2,700 metric tons of CO2 per year compared with the current U.S. average utility fuel mix, or the equivalent of planting 4 square kilometers of forest every year. In addition, manufacturing wind turbines and building wind plants generate only minimal amounts of CO2 emissions...when these emissions are analyzed on a life-cycle basis, wind energy’s CO2 emissions are extremely low—about 1% of those from coal, or 2% of those from natural gas per unit of electricity generated. In other words, using wind instead of coal reduces CO2 emissions by 99%; using wind instead of gas reduces CO2 emissions by 98%.
Through 2050, the 20 percent wind plan would remove 4,000 MillionMetricTonsEquivalent of CO2 from the air.
Health - almost half of all Americans live in counties where unhealthy levels of smog place them at risk
Water - Fossil fuel plants are responsible for 48% of all total water withdrawals. 1 GigaWatt of wind power saves about 2 billion gallons of water consumption.
Land Use - Coal mining is estimated to disturb more than 400 thousand hectares of land every year for electricity generation in the United States, and destroys rapidly disappearing wildlife habitat. 20 percent wind would disturb as little as one quarter of that amount. An important factor to note is that wind energy projects use the same land area each year; coal and uranium must be mined from successive areas, with total disturbed area increasing each year. In agricultural areas, land used for wind generation projects has the potential to be compatible with some uses because only a few hectares are taken out of production, and no mining or drilling is needed to extract the fuel.
Bird Deaths - current wind energy generation is responsible for 0.003% of human-caused avian mortality. Even with 20% wind, turbines are not expected to be responsible for a significant percentage of avian mortality so long as proper precautions are taken in siting and design.
Public Opinion - Of those polled in a study conducted by Yale University in 2005, more than 87% want expanded wind energy development (Global Strategy Group 2005). Only a minority of the U.S. population appears to oppose wind energy.
Sound - When the wind picks up and the wind turbines begin to operate, the sound from a turbine (when standing closer than 350 m) is 35 to 45 decibels (dB). This sound is equivalent to a kitchen refrigerator running.
Capital Cost -
Land-Based Wind: $1,730/kW in 2005 and 2010, decreasing 10% by 2030.
Coal: $2,120/kW in 2005
Nuclear: $3,260/kW in 2005
Total Cost - Out of a total energy expenditure of over $2 trillion, adopting the 20% Wind by 2030 Plan would cost only $43 Billion more than the No New Wind Plan, a trivial difference.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Craig Collier on Feb 8, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




