permaculture

[David Neeley <dbneeley@gmail.com>]

Jerod,

At present, large-scale wind turbines properly located are competitive
with coal or natural gas systems--and when all costs are compared more
than competitive with nuclear facilities.

The principal question is whether you have appropriate wind conditions
in your area during the periods of peak demand. For example, here in
the Dallas, Texas area the conditions are not sufficient--during the
hottest periods of the year when the demand is at its peak, the wind
speed is insufficient for a proper payback.

That said, we are about 90 miles from areas that are more than
sufficient--and where growing numbers of wind farms are located.

As to land area, as you are probably aware the land can be leased from
farmers or others on very long-term leases (including access roads).
The entire ground between and around the towers themselves need not be
used only for the wind farm.

The most advanced wind turbines are much larger than previous
ones--the largest one thus far is to go into operation in Germany by
year's end. Its rotors are 126 meters in span. With a system that
large, the rotational speed can be lower than with smaller systems.
The design output for that one is, indeed, 5 MW. See
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/04/worlds_largest_wind_.html
Here is a rather interesting photo of the machine with the rotors
installed: http://www.repower5m.com/bilder_news/021004//5m_01.jpg

All of which said, your statement that 5 megawatts is "sufficient for
100 homes for a day" caused my response. A generator rated at "5
megawatts" will do that continuously at rated output. Thus, it would
generate a maximum of 5 megawatt-hours per hour or a theoretical
maximum (given sustained wind speed of about 14.5 mph or more) of 120
megawatt-hours per day.

I noticed that in 1999, the average consumption of Michigan residences
was 630 kWh per month, or 21.5 kWh per day. If a wind generator
produces only 5 mWh per *day*, then, the total households supported,
on average, would be around 232 households. With the new, larger units
producing 5 mW continuously, the housholds supported would be nearly
5,600.

I am not sure your present generation costs nor the projected ones for
either reconditioned existing generation plants or proposed new ones.
However, when built using the current technology, wind farms are more
than competitive from a per-kilowatt basis with a reasonable payback
period which is well below the projected life of the units.

In addition, the obvious benefits of the reduction of pollution and
the avoidance of increasing costs for fuel would mean the ability of
the utility to avoid ever-increasing costs as time passes.

As for nuclear, there are *many* nukes built by utility companies that
have been tremendous sinks of investment money over many decades. For
your management to seriously propose building more in today's climate
is rather astounding. Even from a simple economic basis without
considering the many issues involving waste disposal, the costs of
building and operating a nuke are incredibly large--as is the lead
time from inception of the plan to completion of a project.

I understand there is a commercial wind farm being built in Wisconsin.
A similar project for Michigan would seem highly advisable if and
where the conditions are favorable.

In short, don't blindly accept what your rather biased execs are
saying about "efficiency". It appears obvious, if you have quoted them
correctly, that they are either misinformed or mendacious.

David 





> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:11:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
> From: Envirofarming <envirofarming@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [permaculture] re:elin's reply to cow patties
 It would take twice the land mass to build a wind turbine farm as it
would a coal plant, if not more!  One wind turbine, if properly
maintained will peak out at around 5mw of power.  This would provide
enough power for around 100 homes for a day.  That isn't efficient
enough in today's society.  However, if we we
>  re to use wind power, water power, and other environmentally-friendly 
> sources, I think it would be much more efficient even than coal power.
> ------------------------------