Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the windmills-not-just-for-tilting-anymore dept.

Diane Cardwell reports at the NYT that once the next generation of larger, taller turbines in development hits the market, all 50 states could become wind energy producers and the bigger machines — reaching as high as 460 feet — could eventually make faster winds at higher altitudes an economical source of electricity. “We believe very much the central role of wind in meeting our climate challenges, and we’re very committed in this direction,” says Ernest Moniz, the secretary of energy. “It’s going to require being able to take advantage of a broader set of resources,” and it will give wind power a “bigger footprint,” onshore and off.

Energy officials and executives are pushing toward machinery that would reach 360 to 460 feet high. That would increase the wind development potential in an additional 700,000 square miles — more than a fifth of the United States — bringing the total area to 1.8 million square miles. The potential expansion would affect areas where wind farms already exist and bring areas into the market. The main regions where height would increase potential wind production include the Southeast, Northeast, states around the Ohio River valley and the Great Lakes, and parts of the interior West and Pacific Northwest. In all, the DOE report "Enabling Wind Power Nationwide" says, land-based and offshore wind could produce 16,150 gigawatts of electricity a year, more than 10 times the country’s consumption (PDF). Wind installations now account for 65 gigawatts, just under 5 percent of national demand. “We’ve proven out as an industry in Europe, with a fair number of turbines in Europe at 120 meters,” says Tom Kiernan. “By going to 100 or 110 meters, we can open up all 50 states."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:39PM

    by Nuke (3162) on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:39PM (#186001)

    The power station in that picture is producing vastly more power than the little wind turbine there. You need to think in terms of Eyesoreness-per-kilowatt; looks like you would need over ten thousand of those little wind turbines spread over the countryside to equal that power station. Conventional power stations are ugly but localised; wind turbines are ugly and spread around.

    Conventional power stations can be and usually are (in the UK) sited in an industrial zones, typically by estuaries alongside things like oil refineries and docks, areas which are already fucked up. Wind generators however need to be spaced around, leading to their being "dilute" power (a point the Greenies count in their favour) and their builders want to site them on hill tops and ridges - the very areas which are the most scenic and prominent in fact.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by monster on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:38PM

    by monster (1260) on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:38PM (#186080) Journal

    Eyesoreness is highly subjective [britannica.com].

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by richtopia on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:24PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:24PM (#186105) Homepage Journal

    Lets take a vote. Who here thinks that a bunch of wind turbines on the horizon is an eyesore?

    I do not.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @01:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @01:33AM (#186280)

      Me neither. Unless that horizon is in my back yard. That's how it works, right?