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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:15PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:15PM (#186023) Journal

    If the guy says "There's nothing in this tower that is new, magic wizardry, unproven science or unproven devices right now - right down to the pumps, the turbines, the generators," - then where's the proof. Where're the 1/8th, 1/16th, 1/32nd and 1/64th-scale models *showing* that this is viable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower#History [wikipedia.org]

    Pickett said the company is not counting on any government money for the estimated $1.55 billion project.

    "Right now, we have a commitment, a conditional commitment, for 100 percent of all that capital. It's from an international firm based here in San Francisco, National Standard Finance," Pickett said.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:58PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:58PM (#186032) Homepage
    Do you really not know the difference between up and down? Perhaps you are one of the "scientists" behind one of these two designs, that would explain a lot of things.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves