4 ms·

Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from co

Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from computers to TVs to washing machines. Look out for 35 years. Is it still minuscule?

tsotha 15y ago
In some respects wind is like hydro, in that there are a limited number of good places to site a wind farm. As the number of turbines grows there will be diminishing returns as the new sites are less good because they have less wind, longer distances to existing power infrastructure, more damaging weather incidents, etc.
- danielharan 15y ago
  We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
  - ams6110 15y ago
    Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?
    - danielharan 15y ago
      None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.
greedo 15y ago
Considering how unpopular wind energy is in some areas due to either killing a large number of raptors, or "despoiling" the view from Martha's Vineyard, I doubt the production will continue to double indefinitely.
- danielharan 15y ago
  Turbines kill fewer birds than coal plant smokestacks. Newer, bigger ones move more slowly, killing fewer birds as well as being quieter. They also produce more power per area. As for the view... well, you can't please everyone.
  - greedo 15y ago
    Actually that's incorrect, at least for centralized wind farms: http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/roeshot-skyler.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/... The key takeaway from that thesis is: "As determined in the risk characterization, a centralized wind farm does have a greater impact on avian mortality than the coal fired- power plant. "
    - danielharan 15y ago
      Correct link: http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/roeshot_skyler.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/... The thesis examines only Fowler Ridge, which mostly has 1.65MW Vestas v82 with a 41m blade length and hub height of 70m. The latest I could easily get specs for is a 3MW Vestas: 56m blade length, 84m hub. Higher, more efficient, and most importantly: slower which kills fewer birds. Last year they introduced a the V164 at 7.0MW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas

tsotha 15y ago

In some respects wind is like hydro, in that there are a limited number of good places to site a wind farm. As the number of turbines grows there will be diminishing returns as the new sites are less good because they have less wind, longer distances to existing power infrastructure, more damaging weather incidents, etc.

danielharan 15y ago
We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
- ams6110 15y ago
  Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?
  - danielharan 15y ago
    None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.

greedo 15y ago

Considering how unpopular wind energy is in some areas due to either killing a large number of raptors, or "despoiling" the view from Martha's Vineyard, I doubt the production will continue to double indefinitely.

danielharan 15y ago
Turbines kill fewer birds than coal plant smokestacks. Newer, bigger ones move more slowly, killing fewer birds as well as being quieter. They also produce more power per area. As for the view... well, you can't please everyone.
- greedo 15y ago
  Actually that's incorrect, at least for centralized wind farms: http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/roeshot-skyler.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/... The key takeaway from that thesis is: "As determined in the risk characterization, a centralized wind farm does have a greater impact on avian mortality than the coal fired- power plant. "
  - danielharan 15y ago
    Correct link: http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/roeshot_skyler.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/... The thesis examines only Fowler Ridge, which mostly has 1.65MW Vestas v82 with a 41m blade length and hub height of 70m. The latest I could easily get specs for is a 3MW Vestas: 56m blade length, 84m hub. Higher, more efficient, and most importantly: slower which kills fewer birds. Last year they introduced a the V164 at 7.0MW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas