More on Wind-farming
I came across this BusinessWeek Special Report called "Wind: The Power. The Promise. The Business". A couple of excerpts:
In the U.S., more than 25,000 turbines produce 17 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity, enough to power 4.5 million homes. Total capacity rose 45% last year and is forecast to nearly triple by 2012. Right now, only 1% of the country's electricity comes from wind, but government and industry leaders want to see that share hit 20% by 2030, both to boost the supply of carbon-free energy and to create green-collar jobs.17 gigawatts! I had no idea it was that big already. That gives me much hope for our energy future.
Kansas, in the middle of the wind belt, has become a battleground for the wind revolution. Advocates of alternative energy are pitted against defenders of the status quo, which in Kansas means coal. The flash point: a proposal by Sunflower Electric Power to build two 700-megawatt, coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. State regulators denied permits on the basis of CO2 emissions, the Republican-controlled legislature passed bills to overturn the ruling, Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the bills, and the legislature has narrowly sustained her vetoes. So ferocious is this fight that Sunflower and its allies placed ads in newspapers suggesting that because Sebelius is against their coal project she's playing into the hands of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The poisoned atmosphere helps explain why Kansas has only 364 megawatts of wind power capacity from about 300 turbines, despite having some of the hardest-blowing wind in the country, while Texas produces more than 10 times as much.We in Massachusetts know all about this. The wealthy NIMBYs of Martha's Vineyards have tried to stop the proposed offshore wind-farm from becoming a reality (BusinessWeek has a companion Special Report on that story and its impending positive resolution, The War Over Offshore Wind Is Almost Over). Just another case of politics impeding reason, science and technology...
Comments
I'm interested in wind power or anything that will give me my own clean energy supply (I never said local pollution was not an issue) on a much, much smaller scale.
There is an end to the market for coal burning, and that's when it becomes too expensive to burn (in all senses). The definition of too expensive is when there is an equal or better substitute for less money. Until then, blocking the construction of coal burning plants is pure government interference in the market.
Do let me know if you design, or find a wind turbine that is cost effective on a small scale. Have you seen ones designed for highway overpasses? Did you post on that? They're pretty cool.
1. We reduce our energy usage as much as we can (insulate, telecommute, carpool etc.).
2. Get low-tech and cheap energy substitute (solar attic fan, solar air heater etc.) second.
3. Then get into small-scale energy production to become a net-positive energy producer (small-scale wind turbine such as the AeroCam I posted about and PV).
4. Then, if I still want to get into the energy business, start a utilitities company!
#4 is highly unlikely though...
(Do check out AeroCam. It's a thing of beauty!)