Wind power

[Swatopluk]

Any solution has to think large, as in distributed over a very large area like a continent. That way fluctuations can be equalled out with a limited amount of conventional power. But as said that needs a dense and sophisticated grid and not all eggs in one basket. Widely distributed wind turbines, photovoltaics and solarthermics more concentrated in desert zones, hydropower in the mountains, tidal power at the coast plus gas turbine plants that can be switched on and off quickly as equalizers.

As for longevity, the Chinese swamp the market with at best mediocre workmanship at dumping prices. Many a modern windmiller found out that he made a bad bargain when after a few years or a single slightly above avarage storm their turbines failed or came tumbling down.

There is an idea from the early 20th century to solve the cloud problem for solar plants. Float the grid above the clouds using large balloons and tied to the ground with long cables (that also connect it to the grid). Then the main obstacle was (perceived to be) the lack of cables that would not break under their own weight. In cases of extreme weather the whole installation would be either wound down to Earth temporarily or (if that could not be done in time) released to fly to safety.
Maybe not really feasible but at least interesting.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

And then?  There's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

[youtube=425,350]CqEccgR0q-o[/youtube]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is no such thing as an energy production system that doesn't have down sides, absolutely none whatsoever, the question is how bad are the bads and how good are the goods and check the balance.

Lets start with the worse offender: coal. Probably the dirtiest method of energy generation which benefits from the bargain low price of coal and the familiarity of the plants in question. Despite what the industry might claim the lovely stacks not only directly affect the surrounding population (health issues are well known) but pump, not only CO₂, but other heavy metals into the atmosphere, including the now ubiquitous mercury that anyone eats every time (s)he has a piece of tuna. There is no such thing as clean coal and carbon sequestration makes the production so expensive that no one wants to actually implement it.

Natural is gas is cheaper and slightly cleaner but it still pumps a significant amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, not to mention the lovely effects of fracking if you get your water from subterranean reservoirs. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if I still lived in my hometown of Bogota at 2600 mts above sea level, but at this point everyone here (and half of the planet's population) lives near the coast, which is rising. Put the price on that.

Then there's nuclear, which is incredibly expensive (and existing only thanks to overgenerous subsidies on each country that has implemented it), and has this particularly dirty fuel. The general mantra has been that if you are careful and disciplined no harm will come from a nuclear plant, the Russians were reckless, the Americans careless, but look at the Japanese, who would've thought that the next nuclear disaster would come from the disciplined Japanese! To top it all the only ones that seem to be managing nuclear right are -gasp!- the French which produce the majority of their energy with nuclear and recycle the waste limiting the amount that needs to be stored, yet I'm sure you can hear the French protesters against nuclear from the other side of the English channel on a clear night.

Fussion is a pipe dream, not happening in two or perhaps four generations, even ITER is experimental, it will produce energy for less than a minute running (because it is way back from the time we can run a Tokamak 24/7) and with a life inversely proportional to the hours it can run due to heavy neutron bombardment which makes the reactor itself brittle.

That leaves us with renewables.

Hydro is destructive to the ecology of the rivers it uses and generates methane if large portions of vegetation go underwater, also the larger the project the heavier and that has proved to be problematic from a geological point of view (see the issues with earthquakes in China due to their very large reservoirs). I imagine it is possible to make hydropower less destructive, but then again that would make it more expensive.

Photovoltaics currently use semiconductors for their fabrication and that has been a contentious aspect, both for cost (which has been coming down significantly) and disposal. Things are getting better on that front albeit slowly as the panels use less rare earths, and are more efficient so that the energy cost of building them is less and paid of faster, although you still need to run them for a few years before reaching that point. Price per watt is also coming down enough to be considered for personal use.

Solar thermal is still on early adoption, plants are expensive to build and when you use molten salts to keep the generators working when there is no sun, there are question regarding their disposal. Given the big item price not that many corporations are willing to bite until they feel comfortable they will get their investment back.

Tidal has the same early adoption issues of solar thermal, very expensive and a very reluctant industry.

That leaves wind. As said before there are ecological concerns with bats and birds, offshore is expensive to implement (BTW, considering that those facilities wouldn't be that far from the shore, they may be on the paths of a number of migratory and coastal birds, that impact is still to be determined). Noise is a concern but not as big unless you are living under the towers themselves, which BTW is a no-no. Manufacturing costs aren't that big, and they seem to repay themselves in both energy and CO₂ quicker than photovoltaics, obviously they require maintenance but then again all forms require it in one way or another, while I don't have specific numbers at hand my main suspicion is that maintenance is drastically cheaper than maintaining a coal/gas fired plant, a hydroelectric plant or even worse, a nuclear power plant. Failures (as spectacular as they may seem) have far less impact on the surrounding communities (think of a coal/gas plant on fire, the failure of a dam or even better, a radioactive release into the atmosphere), at first glance only photovoltaics and tidal seem safer on that aspect.

And then there's NIMBY. Nobody (and in many cases in his/her right mind) wants a power plant next door. How would a couple of stacks pumping vapor/smoke do to the view? Or the respiratory illness common on the surrounding area of a coal power plant? Or do you want to have a nuclear power plant close by? How about a nuclear disposal facility?

On the other end, how do you think a large array of solar panels look over a valley? In my subjective opinion wind turbines look far better than the alternatives. Obviously between not having them 'polluting' the view and having them it looks prettier without them, but then again power plants will go up somewhere.

In my view the age of wind is coming because that balance between the good and the bad is starting to go to the good compared to the alternatives.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One of my favorite scenarios, would be to pave all the roadways with solar cells.   Apart from rush-hour traffic, the majority of the time, the roadway is directly under that lovely-lovely sunlight.  (I'll leave the engineering issues of creating a solar panel that can withstand traffic as an exercise for the student.  It's only engineering, after all )

Another possible location, is roofs-- every dwelling conceived of by humans, has to have a roof-- even the earth-sheltered ones have an earthen "roof".   And those super-tall downtown buildings?  They are each and every one sheathed in glass these days.  Multiple-square meters of glass.

Suppose we replace roofing materials with solar panels, and office building's sides (at least on the south, west & east sides) with see-through photo panels? 

The buildings in question are already there, spoiling the landscape.   And the greatest power demands are in the cities anyway, so there'd be easy access to a power grid.

You have to cover these things anyway, with something-- why not cover them with something that has double-duty?

Food for thought.

And another thing:  why not place modest vertical wind turbines (i.e ones that rotate in the vertical axis) on top of large buildings too?   The majority of birds affected by these, would be the pest species anyway (i.e. roof-rats, or pigeons).  I doubt we'd see any serious impact on their over-abundant populations from these roof turbines.

[Swatopluk]

One idea is to build vertical wind turbines into the power line pylons.

[Griffin NoName]

...........but then you'd get rampaging power line pylons escaping across the savannah!!

[Aggie]

If one considers that birds tend to be sensitive to air pollution, I suspect that fossil fuel (and especially coal-fired) power plants are far, far, worse than wind in terms of bird mortality.  Hard to say regarding bats; I have to wonder if there's something about the frequencies of noise produced by the mills that befuddles bats.

And another thing:  why not place modest vertical wind turbines (i.e ones that rotate in the vertical axis) on top of large buildings too?   The majority of birds affected by these, would be the pest species anyway (i.e. roof-rats, or pigeons).  I doubt we'd see any serious impact on their over-abundant populations from these roof turbines.

Or, ever noticed how there's nearly always a constant wind along major roads? Why not small vertical turbines lining roadways, in areas where winds are highest? Many major highways have existing power lines running nearby.

[Earthling]

It's my understanding that the vertical axis turbines are less productive than the big pinwheels because of the shorter moment arm - they can't turn a heavy enough armature to generate MWs of electricity, only a few KWs. Colocating them with power pylons is an interesting idea, but I wonder about the potential for the vibrations to damage the transmission lines. I'm sure the power companies would be quite paranoid about it.

I'm not sure what the rest of the world does regarding worn-out grid-scale wind projects, but up here we require funding for decommissioning to be built into the business plan of a wind farm. Decommissioning means taking everything down - down to two feet below grade - and restoring the roads and pad areas to their original condition. Also, most operators allow themselves the option of replacing the nacelles when they wear out (20-25 years) with new ones, using the same towers, thereby dramatically reducing the overall cost of the project refit when compared to a new project.

I am considering requiring my current project (and likely all future projects) to curtail operations when winds are less than 5 km/s as a way to prevent bat mortality. I read a study today that shows an approximately 80% reduction in bat mortality with this level of curtailment, at a cost of approximately 2% of generation capacity for an 8 month annual curtailment period (no need to curtail when temps approach zero F).

Failures like the one in the video Bob posted are extremely rare. Another red herring that is enthusiastically championed by the professional NIMBYs up here is fire hazard, also extremely unlikely. Annually there are literally hundreds of thousands of forest fires started by human carelessness (#1) and lightning (#2). Turbines have caused fires, but the historical total is very small (can't remember the number, certainly less than a thousand and possibly less than a hundred. that research is back at the office). The technology in these things is constantly improving. GE just made a change to their 2.75MW unit within the last month or so that boosts its output to 2.85MW without changing its acoustic signature or maintenance schedule. Siemens introduced a 3.0MW unit within the last six months or so. I understand that there is a 6.0MW unit available for offshore applications.

Aggie, that is a fascinating point you raise regarding the potential mortality associated with coal and gas fired generation. I wonder if anyone has studied it enough to make a valid comparison of mortality per MW of capacity.

[Sibling DavidH]

We have too many people in prison.  Treadmills, generators, free power.

[Swatopluk]

... to curtail operations when winds are less than 5 km/s

Wind farms on Jupiter? 

Failures like the one in the video Bob posted are extremely rare.

The usual way is a simple collapse of the structure because of crappy workmanship. And it's usually the cheaply built Chinese models that at times swamped the market.

Btw, I posted a link to that video already on page 1

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We have too many people in prison.  Treadmills, generators, free power.

Wasn't that the way they worked Oscar Wilde to the death?

[Swatopluk]

No, Wilde lost his fight to the death with the wallpaper (no info whether it was one of those deadly ones dyed with ScHweinfurt Green)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Btw, I posted a link to that video already on page 1

Please forgive me, if I failed to credit you properly.  My bad.

I'd seen that video via theCHIVE awhile back, and it seems appropriate to embed it where I did.   I seldom click links.  (combination of lazy & paranoia-- but, I've never had a computer virus, and I've been doing PC's since 1981...)

[Lindorm]

Here in Sweden, wind power is somewhat common, and definetely a growth sector, including some large-scale parks. Apart from NIMBY-ism, there has also been some serious and sound opposition to wind power projects for mainly ecological reasons, but also from the tourist industry. If you have an industry dedicated to showing people beautiful unspoilt countryside, a line of wind turbines might not be the best of views, nor beneficial to the lightening of tourist wallets.

Quite a few large industries here in Sweden have gotten on the windmill wagon, mostly as a complement to their base power needs and as a cheaper alternative to buying capacity on the spot market. When the industry has no need for the generated power, they can sell it to any power company connected to the national grid. Environementally-wise, if you already have a huge paper mill or open-pit mine and have already terraformed the area beyond any recognition, I suppose no-one bothers about a few windmills being erected on the site.

[Swatopluk]

I seldom click links.  (combination of lazy & paranoia)

Me too. This time it was just for the surprise factor that I did not use the youtube display tool.