Talk:Wind power/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Useful link

This might be a useful link to add as it has a list of all proposed North American offshore projects OffshoreWind.net

Does anyone have some better images? I like this one which I know is from San Gorgonio Pass, but I'm not sure of its provenance. Nrcprm2026 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I do - Windfarm picture - from the south coast of Western Australia near Albany. I took it myself and am happy to release it for use in Wikipeda. --Nickj69 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stationary fuel cells for storage

Here's a basis for current H2 electrolysis storage.

[edit] NPOV Question

This sentence from (economics) seems to assert that wind requires subsidies in order to compete with traditional energy; however, 97% of subsidies have gone to nuclear energy, while gas and oil get huge subsides in many ways not least of which is the free-ride on the health effects of pollution.

"* In order to compete with traditional sources of energy, wind power often receives financial incentives. In the United States, wind power receives a tax credit of 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour produced, with a year inflationary adjustment."

So I would propose perhaps changing it:

"Wind power requires far less government economic support than either fossil fuels or nuclear power, and for this reason is the fastest growing form of energy production available today." Benjamin Gatti 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to belabor this point of view. A NPOV does require that we acknowledge that at the current time, getting wind to compete with other subsidized forms of energy requires subsidies for wind. -- Chuck

[edit] Greenhouse emissions in Denmark

Under "Yield" it is stated that greenhouse emissions in Denmark rose 6.2% despite the widespread use of windpower. This number is deceptive and does not show any trend. Denmark exports electricity to Norway, and weather conditions have a large influence on production and demand of electricity. The Danish Energy Authority publishes "observed" and "adjusted" CO2 emissions [1], the latter show a decrease in emissions for 2003. The observed CO2 emissions fell by 9.4% in 2004. Therefore I removed this meaningless statement from the article. Mathijs Romans 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wind Power Land Usage

Hey, I was interested in how a wind farm compared to land usage vs. strip mining for coal, so I tracked down some data and did the math.

Coal mining: 40,000,000 short tons of coal / 1 mile^2 (USGS data for Montana strip mining area)

1000 mw coal plant = 4 mst coal / year (US DOE)
plant lifespan = 50 years
200 mst coal burned over lifetime
total stripmine area to produce coal = 5 miles^2

94 miles^2 = 1000mw wind plant coverage (AWEA)
only 5% of this is actually occupied by turbines (AWEA), or 4.7 miles^2

Thus the actual turbines for a 1000 mw wind farm would occupy less area than the strip mining required to run an equivalent coal plant for 50 years. However, the additional "buffer" zone around the turbine would be 20x the strip mining.

Still, it seems pretty good, especially when you calculate the resources in transporting coal and the emissions.

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the actual article.

  • Interesting figures. It should be noted that the typical expected life of a wind turbine is 20 years (although if a facility proves viable the turbines would be upgraded after that). Also, AWEA's insistence that only 5% of the area of a wind farm is actually "used" is like saying a 747 only occupies only a few square feet of ground space (where its wheels sit). A wind turbine needs clearance around it and its visual and noise or vibrational impact are obviously widespread -- especially when they are erected on prominent ridgelines. Kerberos 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes - partly true, and not - you see, with subsidized wind turbines taking 5% of a farmers land, it still leaves the remaining 95% to grow subsidies corn, or raise subsidized pigs, so in the mid-west, this is true, however near urban areas, it would be a problem, but then nuclear plants and coal mines don't fit the model planned community very well either. Personally, I think wave energy is better for urban centers - its very close in most cases, doesn't intrude on the visuals, and protects the coastline. Benjamin Gatti 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
On the land requirements for wind, I can confirm the figure of 0.1 MW per km2 km2/MW - see my source here:[2]. I've therefore removed the 'fact' tag. Perhaps we don't need to resort to such calculations - I've seen them done by researchers, but cant remember who. As for how the land areas compare - it's not all straightforward since the areas are being used very differently but it does support the surprising but important claim that wind energy does not need all that much land area. Jens Nielsen 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This cite [3] says:

Power density
In order to estimate the amount of capacity that can be allocated to a certain area, the power density is a relevant parameter. Estimates from experts at the ECN Wind Energy Department have yielded a range for the power density for onshore wind in Europe of 6 to 10 MW/km2.
which is significantly more than 0.1MW/km2 quoted above. Stephen B Streater 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We are in agreement, and in fact we refer to the same authors. By mistake, I wrote MW/km2 instead of km2/Mw, as it is used in the article. 10 MW/km2 is 0,1 km2/MW, so the information in the article is ok. Jens Nielsen 09:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fastest growing

Can we substantiate whether or not wind power is the fastest growing source (on a percentage basis) of electricity produced in the United States? The EIA sort of supports that statement [4] as recently as 2004. However, note the following: 1) "commercial hydropower" grew faster, whatever that is; (2) the growth in solar is for utility generated solar (which is dominated by a plant in the mojave desert) -- off grid and/or grid connected electricity produced by non-utilities is not counted. So many qualifications seem to be required to substantiate this claim that I currently don't think it is a useful claim. Can we get data for the world as a whole? -- Chuck

Also, note that it is plausible that electricity production increased by 30-some-odd percent in 2004 over 2003 despite losing federal tax breaks due to latencies between when projects are started and when they start producing electricity. So I'm not sure that it's reasonable for us to suggest that wind power can grow rapidly even without the federal support. Of course, if we can get some 2005 electricity generation figures for the U.S. ... -- Chuck

(Chuck) It would help a great deal if you would create a log-in. I enjoy your edits, but there would have been complaints about deleting old comments, as they are instead Archived (which I took care of for you). Your insights are much appreciated. Benjamin Gatti 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the etiquette lesson.  ;-) Chuck Simmons 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution in interpreting the growth and timing of the growth in the U.S. wind market as reflected in EIA Tables. The table linked-to is for generation, not capacity. The large jump in 2004 generation actually reflects the significant growth in U.S. capacity in 2003 (since wind isn't "dispatched", its generation is largely a function of installed capacity...obviously with weather playing a big role...much of the capacity entering service in 2003 came online late in the year, and thus doesn't affect generation stats for 2003 much but does impact 2004). See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0811a.html for the EIA capacity growth for all generation resources. Note that the timing of the capacity growth is important when assessing whether or not the PTC is correlated with and/or neccesary for continued growth in the U.S. wind industry. The American Wind Energy Association seems to think the PTC is an important near-term support for the industry (http://www.awea.org/legislative/), but that doesn't neccesarily mean the industry would die without it. In any event, the AER Table 8.11a (link above) does generally support the notion in the U.S. that wind is the "fastest growing" generation resource in terms of percent change in installed capacity. Of course, this depends on the year you examine (do you take a single-year's growth...is it a year with the PTC or without the PTC? Do you take a multi-year average). Also, if you look at absolute growth, wind does lag significantly behind natural gas-fired capacity (which has a much larger installed base, hence smaller percentage growth rate). 205.254.147.8 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Chris

[edit] Construction cost and externality recovery

I thought we had verified that it took 18 weeks for a turbine to replace its cost of materials and construction, and recover the expended CO2 on balance. Is that still in the article or did someone take it out? --James S. 06:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Was it three months or four months? Doesn't recovering the energy budget include recovery of the CO2 excess from production, or is that what the extra month is for? --James S. 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global mean wind speed

Here is an interesting report: http://www.ssmi.com/papers/ocean_surface.pdf --James S. 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I spotted this in an energy bulletin:

"Wind goes forward in 2005. World wind generating capacity surged 25% in 2005, to 59 GWe. Much of this is in Europe (41 GWe), but the most rapid growth was in Asia, Australia, Canada and Egypt." GWEC 22/2/06.

Simesa 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News items

a VERY interesting NEW concept/idea that should be added in the article: The Wind Energy Skyscrapers Power Plants Gaetanomarano 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (time not exact)

Wow, a lot of statements with no supporting data. #1 - 30% transmission losses...where did that number come from? #2 - What is the rated output of these 250 smaller turbines and at what wind speed do they cut-in/cut-out? #3 - What is the efficiency of the "energy storage device"? #4 - How will this eliminate the bird killing issue? Birds fly around and land on buildings. #5 - How much of an impact on productive land do large utility scale wind farms have? #6 - Has the fact that the turbines on the opposite side of the structure from the wind will have a lower output due to the energy taken out of the wind by the first rows of the turbines. That is just the start of my questions. This article makes many claims without any hard data supporting it, just vague generalizations. In my opinion there is no way this should be added.Doublee 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

this idea was born in my mind just a few months ago and I've had the time to publish it on my website six weeks ago, so, no data, no study, no simulations, no scale-size models, no wind tunnel test (then, no full-size buildings) could exist now and we need months (or years) of R&D time and money to know the right shape, the right height, the right number of rotors, the right number of "layers", etc. infact, in latest weeks I've already discussed on some forums and blogs of possible changes of the early design published in my article (that's NOT a "project" but just a sketch to illustrate the idea) however, the Wind Energy Skyscrapers have MANY advantages since (also with just one-two layers) they can produce FIVE+ times the energy of the biggest 112 m. single rotor wind turbine available on the market that needs the same area! thanks to this new idea, we can produce the same amount of energy in less than 5% of the surface of a FOREST of small wind turbines OR we can use the same surface to produce 20 times more energy! also, the wind over 300 m. are faster and more constant, so, we can produce much more energy, more stable and at a lower price! in other words, the Wind Energy Skyscrapers allow the wind energy to shift SOON from be just a "marginal" source (to be integrated with nuclear, oil and methane power plants) to a STRATEGIC source able to give 30%, 50% or MORE of the energy we need using just a very little amount of surface! Gaetanomarano 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the materials, but this makes it sound like the very definition of original research and as such does not belong here. Cheers Geologyguy 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some news items to the "Pending tasks"/to do list above. Please help incoporate their pricing data into the article. I believe that they all quote commercial prices, with shaping included. Please correct me if I am wrong. --James S. 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is another one which is particularly good. I'll start with that one. --James S. 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another good one: Shouse, Ben (2006) "Wasting the wind: Distance, politics and 'the grid' block new turbines," Sioux Falls Argus Leader argusleader.com --James S. 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC: Pioneers look forward to solar future; Science News: Wind Makes Food Retailers Greener. --James S. 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some more pricing news to /to do. Can anyone figure out what the cost is in Europe? Is there a graph over the past several years to show the trend? --James S. 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Another great article, claiming a "tipping point" in the U.S. as reported by the Counsel on Foreign Relations -- Foreign Affairs' -- pollster, and further detail, and an active comments section.

This article seems to ignore the fact that oil isn't used to create electricity, so increasing wind power has no impact on reducing dependence on oil (unless electric cars become a lot more common). TastyCakes 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand here is the kind of thing which wind advocates are up against -- note the numerous straw-men arguments, such as a request to explain how emissions will decrease. Such arguments only serve to expose the ignorance of the opponents, but if only one person is swayed.... --James S. 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This link no longer works. TastyCakes 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another great news item: Robert S. Boyd (24 Apr. 2006) "As gas prices climb, wind power wins over new fans," Knight Ridder Newspapers. Lots of good quotes and stats; not sure which to use. --James S. 05:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The US recently stopped construction on several wind sites across the Midwest, some say a political move, other that more research is needed if it would affect military radar. Not sure where to put this, but it seems important.[5] --Anon 21:47, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

Center pivot irrigation in Egypt. Turbines could be sited in the unused spaces between the circular fields.
Center pivot irrigation in Egypt. Turbines could be sited in the unused spaces between the circular fields.

I removed this image. It doesn't communcate dual land use as well as the new top photo. --James S. 10:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other kinds of generation are irrelevant

Wtshymanski justified changing:

The cost of wind-generated electric power is plummeting, and is much lower than the cost and externalities of fuel-generated electric power, and lower than the cost alone. [6]

to:

The cost of wind-generated electric power has declined since the 1990's and now may compete with the cost of new fossil-fuelled power plants. Monetizing the environmental effects of fossil-fuel emissions may in fact make the total cost of wind power lower than fossil-fuelled electricity. [same source]

with this edit summary: fossil and hydo plants are still being built [7]

What does that have to do with the edit? The source cited, and the secondary sources it cites, all support the former version. Wtshymanski's version may be technically true, but not as source-supported. For example, the cost of wind power has declined since the 1990s, but it has also declined since the 1980s, the 1970s, and even the early 2000s. Using the '90s is arbitrary. The source clearly states that the cost is "plummeting" which is an accurate description of the steep trend involved.

And most importantly, the cost of generation is firmly below the cost of non-wind forms, and has been since 2004 -- a fact which Wtshymanski tries to hide in his next edit, complaining about a kwh/kw typo in a Rocky Mountain News article [8] which doesn't have anything to do with its table of the per-kwh costs of power.

So, why does Wtshymanski also delete a corroborating detailed discussion from Science magazine? No word on that in his edit summary.

Perhaps some editors simply believe that if their personal point of view isn't supported by sources included in the article, then those sources need to be deleted. Sadly, that is the exact opposite of how editors are expected to behave. --James S. 20:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought encyclopedias had to be accurate and clear. Sometimes I forget this is the Wikipedia. See the discussion above on the Rocky Mountain News article's innumeracy. Why, if wind is the cheapest form of electric power, are there any natural gas, wind, or coal plants being built? They are, you know. The "Science" discussion includes the "environmental cost" which your power bill does not include. I had rephrased the sentence to indicate that IF the "environmental costs" are included, yada yada.. Maybe someone can find a *different* reference than the gee-whiz "Rocky Mountain News" article that gets costs wrong by four orders of magnitude. Maybe some editors believe that encyclopedia articles should have a neutral point of view and not grind axes on behalf of one or another cause. It's be nice if the references actually supported what the article was saying, too. --Wtshymanski 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What does the RMN's typo have to do with the accuracy of the table at the end of the article? Do you have any sources which support your view that new wind power costs didn't dip below new coal power costs in 2004? The straw-man argument is just plain absurd: Why, if coal was the chapest form from 1903-2003, did anyone ever build a hydro, gas, nuclear or other kind of plant during that century? Did you even read the Science magazine article corroborating the RMN data? --James S. 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
See for example page 17 of the .PDF file you'll find at [9] - part of sworn testimony before the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission and prepared by people who know the difference between a kwh and a kw. --Wtshymanski 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The presentation is dated March-April 2004, and the page 17 slide is dated 2002. I think the numbers are about right because the prices fell substantially when the 2 MW turbines started entering mass production in that time frame. Now, 4 MW is closer to the de facto standard, and that slide would look vastly different because a 4 MW turbine costs much closer to the same as a 2 MW turbine than double. --James S. 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing that's missing from these figures is the value of the energy produced. Coal provides a very cheap base load. Nuclear provides good base load but at much higher cost (but we need it to get bomb and now bullet material). Natural gas provides flexible peak load that coal and nuclear can't and that oil used to. Wind provides peak load but not necessarily when needed, so its value is diminished. --Kerberos 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, with pumped hydro and other forms of grid storage available in most locations, the difference between the value of wind and demand-assignable forms works out to about 20%, and that is exactly where prices are teetering at parity in the U.S. at present. --James S. 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Most locations?! --Kerberos 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Anywhere connected to a grid which has pumped hydro or demand hydro for shaping. Is that not most places these days? --James S. 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A small hydro plant in Vermont is hardly going to help balance a wind power facility in North Dakota, even if their grids are ultimately interconnected. --Kerberos 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the "sciencemag" link correct? All I get there is a response to a letter that is in response to a paper. Where is the original source? TastyCakes 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

Does anyone else find the opening paragraph a little weird? Rather than talking about the use of wind power, or even really what it is, the second sentence immediately jumps into the economics, and in what seems to be a pretty POV way. Also the stats totally seem like they're slanting the issue: rather than saying something like "wind went from supplying 1% of the US's power to 1.3%" it says "Wind Power increased 25%!" you know? Also isn't "Wind energy is emerging as a centerpiece of the new energy economy because it is abundant, inexpensive, inexhaustible, widely distributed, clean, and mitigates the greenhouse effect. Rural communities welcome wind farms because they provide income to farmers and ranchers, skilled jobs, cheap electricity, and additional tax revenue to upgrade schools and maintain roads. Wind power could grow by 50% in the U.S. in 2006. [7]" a little POV? Who says it's emerging as a centerpiece in the new energy economy? Do all rural communities welcome wind turbines in their communities, dead birds and eye sores included? In short, I think the whole intro could be a lot more encylopedic. TastyCakes 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, but it's been an economics exposition since before I got here. The quote you ask about is a direct quote from a source in [7], which in turn is a summary of a Foreign Affairs article.
If you re-write it, please keep the existing information in a new "U.S. recent developments" section, or something like that. --James S. 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

This seems to be a pretty politically charged article. How about a nice cozy history section that everyone agrees on? The only thing that stops me putting one in is that there's already a history section for the wind turbine article. However, I think that if anything I think it would be more fitting in this article than that one since this is looking at wind power from a broader perspective. TastyCakes 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Country Usage Rankings

I propose adding proportionate rankings (the percentage of a nations generation) to 'installed windpower capacity' table.

This could be linked to separate articles for each nations wind / alternate programs or to a consolidated and more detailed comparative table of other indicators such as legislated targets, associated social and economic data etc.

What do you think ?

Theo Pardilla 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many countries have seperate articles for their individual wind programs. Don't see any problem with adding % of generation though. I think it should still be ordered by magnitude though. TastyCakes 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Economics section

I've been moving things out of the economics section that don't belong there. Also I've been looking at the "sources" of the section and a lot of them seem pretty shady. For example, the statement "In recent years, the cost of wind-generated electric power has dropped substantially, and by most accounts is now lower than the cost of fuel-generated electric power, even without taking externalities into account" is supported by this site. That site consists of a light weight chat with Lester Brown, president of some environmental group I've never heard of, and then mentions "Past Energy Department studies have concluded wind harvested in just three of the 50 American states could provide enough electricity to power the entire country, and that offshore wind farms could do the same job." (irrelevant to an economics argument) and then some long stretch assumptions about running cars on electricity. Can we not get links to the actual studies, rather than environmentalists discussing studies (presumably only the ones that came back how they liked?) TastyCakes 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that it is hardly established fact that wind power is now the cheapest form of electricity generation, at least it hasn't been established here. There are no direct links to serious studies in the article or the talk page which confirms the statement and the cited article now is the one I talked about above with a clear environmentalist bias. Unless someone can produce a more NPOV source (like a government energy agency) I think it's indefensible to state this as fact. I am therefore changing the sentence, as I have several times before, to reflect this. PLEASE STOP REVERTING IT, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT DISCUSSING HERE. TastyCakes 16:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My sister is a whizz at renewables. I'll see if she has anything to hand. In the UK, the wholesale price of methane (use to power most of our generators) has gone up 4 times recently. Wind power is getting cheaper. So it is looking more likely to be true than ever before. I'll see if I can get some actual figures. Stephen B Streater 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that under optimal conditions wind is cheaper in the US, but because of the rates utilities face sending electricity across other people's lines to cities, and because a backup source is still usually needed, in practice it is not cheaper and that is why new power installations are not dominated by wind. But I don't have a proper source for any of that. TastyCakes 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Wind is good for the base load. For a reliable energy supply, it must be backed up with coal, gas or biomass in case the wind drops off. The UK has a long coastline and is very windy. A new off-shore wind farm in the North Sea gets its energy of construction back in 7 months. The problem in the UK is getting planning permission. Also, in the UK, energy is used a lot for heating houses in the winter - when it is windiest. Very convenient. I'll look up some stats. Stephen B Streater 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link giving payback time for a WES 18. I think a lot of manufacturers will give similar estimates. Stephen B Streater 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are still looking for a government agency source for relative wind/fossil/nuke costs (Tastycakes 22 May 06), see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html. However, be warned that this does NOT support the conclusion that wind power is cheaper than coal or natural gas (although it does show it pretty close). In any event, the comparison is a bit apples/oranges. Wind doesn't compete against just new coal or just new natural gas builds. It has an energy value determined by the season/time-of-day it blows on average in a region. If it blows a lot during peak load periods, yeah, its probably cheaper than the new or existing natural gas plants that are setting the marginal power costs during that time. If it primarily blows during off-peak (fall, spring at night), then its probably competing against existing coal or nuclear generation, and thus must compete against the dispatch cost (that is, fuel cost) of those resources (where the capital costs were recovered decades ago). In general, the discussion of wind cost seems pretty POV, without much hard data (and little hard data exists) to back-up assertions that it is lowest-cost (with or without externalities, the valuation of which is highly controversial and subjective). Also, has anyone been to the annual AWEA WindPower conference this year (Pittsburgh) or last (Denver)? The big topic of discussion in both was how much turbine costs have gone up in the last couple of years (not supporting the present-tense use of the verb "plummeting"). Unfortunately, not a lot of public-domain sources to link to...but if you get a copy of the WindPower 05 or WindPower 06 proceedings (not free, not on the web), I'm sure there's lots of anecdotal references to wind plant installation costs rising in the 15 to 25% range since 2004 or so. Note, I'm not saying wind costs didn't decline substantially from the late 1970's to 2000, or that they'll never decline again...just that it might be hard to verify any presently occuring cost declines. 205.254.147.8 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Chris

I have a hard time accepting the supporting arguments -> Economic feasability section bulleted arguments. All of the statements are general and do not reference any sources which would verify the conclusions which are presented. Should supporting economic arguments be allowed where there are no supporting sources given or specific subsidies defined? I think that the first sentence of the last bullet item ("sudden unpredictable outages") is not a fact that is unique to conventional or nuclear power plants. Wind turbines can also have catastrophic failures which render them usless until repaired, it is just that the distributed nature and number of turbines needed in a wind farm gives the effect of a "derated" plant. While nuclear plants are granted immunity from liability for disasters, they are also HIGHLY regulated and have strict operating requirements. I believe, in order to be fair, that it should be noted that there has only been one incident of a nuclear plant causing health and evironmental impacts, and no accidents have occured in the US which resulted in loss of life or even radioactive exposure equivalent to 1/6th the exposure from a common chest x-ray. In my opinion, the items in the supporting arguments economic feasability section are vague, unreferenced and should also have additional language to give them context.Doublee 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India's windpower capacity @ FY-2006

For future update to the article: India's total windpower capactiy as of March 2006 (end of financial year of 2005) was at 5,200 MW - an increase of 1702MW or 45%. Here is a link--Blacksun 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind variability and turbine power section

Is it just me or should some of the information in this section be in the wind turbine section rather than here? It seems very technical and I thought the wind power section was supposed to be a higher level look at the wind power, rather than the nuts and bolts of how a turbine works? TastyCakes 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This claim:

"More recent work by Gorlov shows a theoretical limit of about 30% for propeller-type turbines.[8] Actual efficiencies range from 10% to 20% for propeller-type turbines, and are as high as 35% for three-dimensional vertical-axis turbines like Darrieus or Gorlov turbines."

is completely wrong. I have personally measured HAWTs with CPs as high as 0.445 and we as an organization have measured CPs as high as 0.48-0.5 on real machines. The referenced article seems to be entirely in error in this area.

Real commercial machines have rotors with CPs in the 0.4-0.5 range with the smaller numbers for smaller turbines. Darrieus rotors are comparable.

[edit] Efficiency

The article claims that the Darrieus turbine is more efficient than a prop, but the Darrieus artcle says "theoretically just as efficient as the propeller type, but in practice this efficiency is rarely realised ". Which is right? Rich Farmbrough 12:54 21 June 2006 (GMT).

---

I'm afraid I haven't yet registered with Wikipedia, however:

I also believe the figures for the efficiency of horizontal wind turbines needs to be updated.

The way efficiency is usually calculated is the Power Coefficient (Cp). This is the ratio of output energy production to arriving kinetic energy. As stated in the article, the Betz limit is the theoretical maximum of 59%, since (in very simple terms) the air cannot stop completely as that prevents more air arriving. To calculate the peak Cp of a wind turbine, take the power curve (published usually on manufacturers web sites), and for each wind speed, the incoming KE is (.5 x Ro x U^3 x A). Modern turbines usually have peak efficiencies of about 45-47 %. The Enercon E-70 is an exception in that it has slightly more efficient blades, giving a peak Cp of around 50%. This is fairly close to the theoretical limit.

Typically turbines aim to establish peak Cp (maximum energy conversion) during the "cubic" region of the power curve, and then start shedding power once they reach rated power. At this point the Cp tails off to lower values. Power shedding is for mechanical design efficiency reasons (there's no point making a turbine strong enough to generate massive power at winds that very rarely happen).

195.188.176.146 10:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

All you need is to cite from reliable sources and we can add this information in. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this paper of mine be sufficient? The above information is all correct and most of it is referenced in this paper.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35058.pdf

Lee Jay Fingersh - 12/8/06—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.248.179 (talk • contribs)

I'm no judge of the science, but it certainly looks spiffy. Has this yet been published in some peer-reviewed space? Self-published sources can be questionable.
Also, could we talk you into creating an account? This article is often vandalized or subject to POV edits, and sometimes it can be hard to distinguish different anonymous IP user by comment. — edgarde 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

As it says on the front, it was presented at the ASME wind symposium at the AIAA conference. It had to go through peer review for that and for the publication on NREL's web site.

I thought I had created a registration. I'm a wikipedia newbie so I'm not sure if I was logged in when I posted above.

Ljfinger 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---


I didn't have the time to read the entire reliable sources section, however I hope the following are useful:

The betz limit is mentioned already in wikipedia:

Sales power curves are available at (for example):

A good general wind power reference is

  • Wind Energy - The Facts ([10]). Written by several of the key players in the European wind energy market, and supported by the european commission.

Sorry I can't spend longer on this Stephen. Busy working on wind farms...

[edit] Controversy section

I change the heading of the controversy and arrangement of the for and against section arguments for the following reasons. Since the section was written in a for and against bullet style rather then paragraph style I felt the heading "The debate for and against wind power" was more appropraite. Secondly, it is traditional to have the for come before against and as such I reversed the order so it matches every other for and against Wikipedia section I've seen. --Cab88 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this formulation, with for and against separated, but some of the "againsts" are actually positive, so I might move them up. For example, the extremely fast energy payback times are a positive compared to all non-renewable sources, and the fact you can use the land for farming is also a big plus, as you are effectively using the land twice. Stephen B Streater 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WTH happened to the controversy section?! I don't see *anything* to indicate that there is controversy with wind power, which there certainly is. I went to this article to see just how cost competative wind energy is compared to other forms of power generation and I CAN'T FIND IT! It's like someone with a POV for wind power has selectively edited anything negative about wind power out (probably a wind generator company or "California dreamer" activist). This article is ridiculous as it currently stands. 142.161.117.186 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This section suggests you are either for wind power or against it. Missing from this section is the possibility of a middle way: there are probably many people who are in favour of wind power as a small percentage of total power generation but against it as a large percentage for the reasons discussed in this section (especially the fact that fluctuations in supply become more serious as the proportion of wind power increases). I have not simply added this position to the section partly because I do not have a suitable citation and partly because it will be difficult to do well.

The section on Arguments of opponents/CO2 emissions perhaps does not make its point well: the small scale of CO2 reduction is not a reason to stop building wind farms, but it does suggest that wind power is very unlikely to solve global warming by itself. This argument can be used against any low emission power and, in fact, an identical argument is also used against nuclear power by Friends of the Earth which rather shows how misleading it is when used as a form of creative accounting (as it is here). This shows how this section currently lacks a clear distinction between technical arguments: "This Won't Work At All" and limitations of scope or scale: "This is Not A Complete Solution To Every Problem". Man with two legs 13:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Tag

I just removed "[citation needed]" from the 'Economic Feasibilty' section because the specifics were clearly cited earlier in the article. --Doc Tropics 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that there weren't sources, but that they weren't (and aren't) particularly impressive. They are for the most part non-technical puff pieces with clear POV issues. TastyCakes 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed cleanup tag

This article looks better and has better sources than 95% if not 99%. If someone has a specific complaint (which I don't see here) then put it back in and say what the problem you think may be. RTSternbough 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article still looks rambling and incoherent, especially towards the end where it descends into bullets. I think there's a lot of information in the "Turbine Siting" and "Turbine Power" sections that should be cut down here with the bulk of the information in Wind and Wind Turbine articles. I don't know what I think about the for/against section..
In short, I find myself unable to read through the entire article at a time without getting bored and skipping through it. I think that's a pretty good indication that it still needs work. Or perhaps that my attention span does? ;) TastyCakes 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic peer review

I ran the below to help identify areas that might do with improvement --jwandersTalk 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
    Fixed except for links within citations; these are consistant, so should be alright. --jwandersTalk 18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
    Fixed except for one quoted instance of "last year". --jwandersTalk 18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[2] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    Checked, couldn't find one. --jwandersTalk 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
    Fixed, though probably missed a few. --jwandersTalk 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
    Fixed. --jwandersTalk 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
  • As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
    This seems to be a bug in the script; I've informed its author. --jwandersTalk 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[6]
    Done. --jwandersTalk 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[7]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • it is claimed
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[8]
      All occurences reworded, cited, or marked [citation needed]. --jwandersTalk 01:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
    Done. --jwandersTalk 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [9]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

[edit] Vertical axis wind generators' article deleted by Jwanders

On 21:11, 2 August 2006 Jwanders deleted my contrib to "Wind Power" page, regarding vertical axis wind generators (Kitegen Project). I'm not interested in editing wars, so I simply wish to know why. It was not possible to integrate my contrib inside the page article? The text I submitted is a translation (from italian to english) taken from the italian Wikipedia page "Energia Eolica" linked to "Wind Power" page. uSER:Magius

I think you have your answer [11] :-) Stephen B Streater 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold textthat

THREE PERCENT OF ENERGY FROM THE SUN IS CONVERTED INTO WIND POWER.

[edit] Scalability

"Denmark has access to Norwegian hydroelectric power which is available at very short notice. A larger country would not have anyone to trade electricity with in the same way, and so could not operate on the same relative scale." The latter sentence makes no sense; a larger country could shift power just as easily, if not more, with similar dispatchable assets, including natural gas generators. Skyemoor 14:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the large power grids of Germany and Norway can absorb the shocks from the variable generation from Danish wind power. If Germany also had 20% wind power, there would be no larger country with massive spinning reserves or hydroelectric reserves who could cushion the effects of fluctuations in their wind power. The Germans would then have to increase their own spinning reserves and that would add to the effective financial and environmental cost of the wind power. Man with two legs 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly if Denmark did not have access to the German and Norwegian grids, they would need more reserves of their own which would increase the cost. Man with two legs 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispatchable power and/or storage, from hydroelectric to hydrostorage to compressed air to natural gas, can be the means to store or offset excess and shortfall energy from windpower. The size of a country does not matter, only their wind resources and their storage/dispatchable power. DSM also plays a role that reduces impacts from low wind periods. Skyemoor 15:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In practice, storing electricity is not so easy and does not happen much.
That's an unsupported pronouncement. There are 3 hydrostorage facilities in my US State alone. A number of hydroelectric plants are also hydrostorage facilities for imported power.
If it did, there would not be any need for spinning reserve anywhere; countries would just use storage.
One of the references shows how Norway banks some of the power imported from Denmark. I agree that more storage would be required.
I think your edit has removed an important point that Denmark's case is misleading if used as an attempt to show that generating a large proportion of power from wind is currently feasible and really demonstrates the opposite. Man with two legs 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, the only point is more storage would be needed and/or other dispatchable power. And that point is in the article. Skyemoor 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge there is no use of storage of wind energy in the Netherlands, and I do suppose that Denmark is somewhat unusual in this respect, but as Skyemoor points out the point is that it is solved by adding more storage, and other methods than pumped storage are available to anyone who so desires. Jens Nielsen 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also argue that "As its neighbors increase their own wind energy, this will not be as simple a solution." is not a valid arguement because wind can be a localized effect and can change dramatically over 10s of miles. This arguement has no source and should be removed.--Michael.j.sykora 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is far too much discussion of the use of pumped storage vs other types of peaking power, such as plain old hydropower and other types. Even more to the point, there are so few countries or systems with any significant penetration (Denmark and Germany?) that this whole line of discussion is a bit of a red herring or straw man argument. Most other types of generation are also not capable of providing all the electricity needed in a given location. In other words, who ever claimed that wind should produce most electricity? Static analysis of the costs of integrating large amounts of wind generation into existing systems and power mixes also miss the point that the mix of power and choice of generating types will and should change as the proportion of wind grows.Gregalton 22:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Payback

" This is to be compared with an always negative payback ratio of fossil or nuclear plants as they burn resources for their operation which are non-renewable. The ratio between the energy output and the construction energy (not taking into account the operation energy!) "

There is certainly merit to the points taken above. Fuel energy is not part of the equation cited in the current section, so the energy payback calculation mentioned is missing an important element. Furthermore, other calculations have shown that wind turbine installations (and decommissioning) have a payback factor of 80. http://www.windpower.org/media(444,1033)/The_energy_balance_of_modern_wind_turbines%2C_1997.pdf So this section needs to undergo correction. Skyemoor 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


What is the difference between EROI and Energy Payback Ratio ? Both notions are similar, and the paragraphs should be merged. --tc 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed links to manufacturers

I decided to be bold and replace the long list of external links to manufacturers with a directory link, since it's more comprehensive and Wikipedia isn't a link directory. Let me know if there are any objections. Wmahan. 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birds and blades

Dear Skyemoor -- As shown by the examples following the statement you and I have been battling over, large modern turbines still kill birds, especially raptors.

The degree to which large, modern turbines kill bills, especially raptors, has not been established by you. The sites you reference about large bird kills are older sites with smaller, faster spinning rotors.

The exceptional experience of Altamont is due to very bad siting.

Your claim. It is indeed a bad site, but the turbines there are older, faster spinning blades. Skyemoor 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the industry generally admits that Altamont is a bad site, that new turbines there would also kill birds. (It's part of their effort to appear conscientious and deflect worries about other sites.)
Cites?

The blades of large modern turbines rotate more slowly, but they are moving just as fast: 150-200 mph at the tips.

But the angular velocity is slower, making them visible, instead of just a blur. Skyemoor 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
A plausible theory perhaps, but not proven.
Are larger turbines proven to kill as many birds as the older turbines?

It is only wishful thinking that they are safer for birds Your insistence that the problem is only with older smaller turbines is not backed up by actual experience. The danger to birds and bats remains the primary concern in siting modern wind facilities. --Kerberos 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided reliable information (advocacy sites without confirmation are meaningless) about the numbers of bird kills at modern wind turbine sites, so you haven't a defensible position. Skyemoor 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The news from Smola is hardly indefensible. It's pretty clear fact.
On the contrary, the data is sparse and minor. You are leaning on one small example in an attempt to color all wind turbine farms in the same light. However, you don't provide the data, which means that you either have none, or that it does not support your position. Skyemoor 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And that is just one report given as an example. I have maps of some sites in Belgium showing the locations of birds killed by the turbines. Such information is naturally most readily found at advocacy sites, certainly not in industry material, or even from bird protectors, many of whom have determined that the benefits of wind outweigh the harm and thus the harm is not diligently paid attention to.
So you are confirming that you don't have any confirmable data. Skyemoor 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet, as I said, the threat to birds (and bats) is one of the main issues in siting and permitting, which in itself suggests that large modern turbines do indeed kill birds.
"Suggests" is much too far a cry from evidence. Skyemoor 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Since this is in the "arguments against" section, I think it's fair to leave them as such. Thanks. --Kerberos 19:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It is fair to keep all of the information in an article supportable, regardless of which side it is on. Skyemoor 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a developing issue and an current debate, and very often neither side is that strongly supported.
Only substantiating evidence should be referenced. See Wikipedia:Verifiability to determine the veracity of your references. Skyemoor 11:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thus I think it's good that the sections are clearly marked as arguments for and against. In fact, the arguments in favor of industrial wind are far less substantiated. Kerberos 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on the latter claim. Skyemoor 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate for and against wind power

Can we neutralize this section? It gives the impression that there are "fors" and "againsts" and that only one side is right; a false dichotomy. In reality, there are both benefits and disadvantages to wind power, and both are important to both sides. Advocates of wind power don't just use the "arguments for" and pretend the "arguments against" don't exist; they say that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages while simultaneously trying to get rid of the disadvantages.

They even have the same subsections. Aesthetics/Aesthetics, Economic feasibility/Economics, Ecology/Ecological Footprint, ... This is not how Wikipedia articles are written.

See Article structures which can imply a view. — Omegatron 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I am in the process of editing and combining this section. It may not be pretty in first cut, and there is a lot of argumentation in here that does not attempt to be neutral (or even make a reasonable argument), but I am leaning to leaving most in for the initial go-round. I think the more obviously out-of-place quotes and arguments will stick out once they are laid next to each other.

I plead for understanding here - I'm not attempting to impose a view, but it really does not read well right now. If the end result is worse, it can be reverted.--Gregalton 12:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of reordering this section is to prevent it from imposing a view. It should not be presented as "arguments for and against" or even "benefits and disadvantages". It should be presented in a neutral way, with sections like "Aesthetics", "Economics" and "Ecological footprint" with no qualifications. — Omegatron 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the reasons you mention that, though stating some perspectives of supporters and critics is going to be difficult without resorting to some form of POV in non-quantifiable and non-verifiable metrics (i.e., "some people don't like how modern windmills look, though they love the look of historic windmills in Holland", and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)
Lumping everyone into "supporters" and "critics" is the problem. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "some people don't like the look of modern windmills". It's just wrong to put that in a "critics" section, as if all "critics" are the same and think the same way, and anyone who disagrees with them must belong in the "supporters" section. I'm sure there are vocal wind power activists who don't like how they look, too. A statement like that should just be put in an "Aesthetics" section. The article should not be presented as a debate, in other words. The article should be something that people in debates can look to as a neutral collection of facts.
Like Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". When you present things as "either this or that", you're leaving out the vast majority of people who don't fit cleanly into either. I hate terrorists just as much as I hate Bush.  :-) — Omegatron 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant that I am not trying to impose a point of view on how this page should look (compared to previous versions); I am trying to impose some even-handedness and readability. I have restructured significantly, and tried to add intros to sections that are more balanced. That said, generic statements about critics and supporters remain, and perhaps some/all could be removed. Are there any other reactions to this restructuring? It is also still not particularly pretty, and far too long - my own view is that some of the for/against arguments could be cut down further, and particularly some of the examples removed - e.g. there is a para about eagles in Norway that I'm sure is interesting, but does not add much to the bird-kill discussion. And the counter-argument - places where birds/bats were not killed - is impossible to formulate, except using verifiable studies. Anyway, grateful reactions, even if negative, to this substantial re-writing. As a suggestion for anyone who has time, this entire page could be cut into several sub-pages that go into more detail where needed.--Gregalton 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I'm not sure we even need a section called "Major issues". We could probably fit those subsections elsewhere.
One Minor Pet Peeve is That We Use Sentence Case for Section Headers; not Title Case. ;-)
Breaking into multiple articles is always preferable to "trimming for size" by deleting things. — Omegatron 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tweaks

Recorded experience that wind turbines are noisy and visually intrusive creates resistance to the establishment of land-based wind farms in most places. Moving the turbines far offshore mitigates the problem, but offshore wind farms are more expensive to maintain and there is an increase in transmission loss due to longer distances of power lines.

I imagine the transmission line loss is trivially small, and should be removed. There should be much more mention of the impact on ocean life, though; erosion/disturbing the sea bed, enhancing the sea bed with an artifical reef, noise, etc.

Unfortunately, this is psuedo-scientific. Lot's of easily accessible numbers are thrown around, though it appears that calculations are based on the sound being actually generated in the water, until one gets to this paragraph, "Sound waves are partly reflected on the water surface and the remainder penetrates the water. Greatest acoustic pressure will be created on the water surface at a reflection level when entering sound waves, due to interference, overlap with reflected sound waves [1]. It is exactly at this point with the highest noise level that sea mammals are most dependent on breathing". Yes, sound waves are reflected, and note that no calculations are performed. There is also destructive interference that cancels out much of the amplitude, and that is not mentioned nor calculated. Finally, the constructive interference is mentioned in an odd way, without proper support or explanation, and we are told it is simply bad. This reference would not be useful nor informative in this article. Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This reference has little substantive findings, only that some species that can hear such low frequencies 'may' have a response (and nothing about becoming accustomed to such sounds). Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Some residents near windmills complain of "shadow flicker," which is the alternating pattern of sun and shade caused by a rotating windmill casting a shadow over residences. Efforts are made when siting turbines to avoid this problem.

I imagine it's more important to mention how the shadow flicker, noise, and visual intrusiveness affect wildlife and the local ecosystem than how it affects humans.

Requires subscription, no evaluation. Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but unsourced, undated, etc, therefore not a valid WP reference. Is there a sourced paper that this was derived from? Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also not mentioned: division of natural habitats by wind farms and clearcut power lines between them, blades throwing ice, "shipping hazards" of offshore farms, erosion caused by desert wind farms.

Good general coverage of issues, and of the solutions as well. Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also good general coverage and mitigations. Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links cleanup

I'm going to take a stab at removing some of the external links to this article. Warning message was posted earlier and it appears the article is attracting links to websites that don't meet WP:EL guidelines, in particular sites with excessive Google ads and promotional sites. If I get too aggressive and remove some links that you think are valuable, please let me know by placing your comments here. Calltech 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

External Link for consideration: Live images from New England's largest Wind Farm on Mars Hill Mountain, Maine:

<a href="http://www.MaineWind.org">www.MaineWind.org</a>


Revisited the cleanup and reorganized external links into Wind Power Projects with external link to one site listing projects plus WP articles about existing projects. The remaining links were removed and dmoz was substituted per WP:EL recommendation. Wind power External links was becoming simply a directory of links. Removed the original guideline warning message, but included an internal warning for future link additions. If you feel an external link is a valuable resource and it conforms to WP guidelines and the information cannot be added to the article itself, please make a comment here and gain consensus before adding. If I removed your link, please don't take it personally. This article's links section simply needed to be cleaned up. Thanks! Calltech 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the advanced Guided Tour on wind energy on http://www.windpower.org/composite-85.htm very usefull. (Olyvers) 4 januari 2007

[edit] Onshore, Near Shore

An anonymous user inserted "onshore and near shore" and other variations throughout the article without reference. I will delete these if not referenced/sourced shortly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Nuclear EROI Figure

I couldn't help but wonder about the nuclear EROI (energy return on investment) figure. Not only does the statement "nuclear power [EROI] is probably no greater than 5:1" sound questionable (probably no greater than?), but it is quite out of line with the 40-60 (cited) figure claimed on the Nuclear power controversy page. Tyson 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been changed in the Economics of new nuclear power plants article - basically, all the numbers can be gotten from the reference. I'll check to see if the statement is still in the reconstituted Nuclear power controversy article. Simesa 01:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Factoid

This:

  • The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.

was on the Solar energy page. If it isn't on here already, somebody could use it for something relevant. Though probably not, b/c there isn't a citation. vLaDsINgEr 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy storage

I have cut (hidden in comments) the energy storage section and replaced with more general text. This section was turning into a discussion of specific technologies for energy storage rather than wind energy (and energy storage in the context of wind). I have not tried to place the text elsewhere, and would be grateful if someone could identify where this material fits best.--Gregalton 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Article

This article has much pro-wind energy arguments and ignores major criticism of wind power, so as to make it POV rather than a neutral assessment. There are major problems in the UK with some proposals to build wind farms in or close to national parks and AONBs, and also in Ireland. It would be nice if this article was edited to make made neutral and rational. Peterlewis 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute, but be specific in your criticisms ("major problems" is not something anyone can effectively respond to). Your edits today effectively amounted to debating global warming, which can be discussed on the associated pages, and noting things that are already covered in the article. For example, in the intro you chose to question whether wind reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which it certainly does (and if you wish to debate the meaning of greenhouse gas emissions it would be better on that page).--Gregalton 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The assumption that wind "certainly does" reduce greenhouse gas emissions is POV. It is a claim yet to be backed up by actual data. --Kerberos 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, even the most committed opponents of wind seem to rather grudgingly accept it reduces CO2/greenhouse gas emissions, at least those who are basing it on official publications. See [12] for example, or [13]. The latter, to quote, says "In fact, analysis of data from the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Germany and the USA shows that a substantial part of the theoretical CO2 saving does not accrue in practice (these points are addressed by country in the Appendix). In some circumstances there may be only minimal benefit.)" Or in another spot: "CO2 is being emitted that negates part of the advantage of wind-power;" but he does not say negates entirely. Since this is from the REF, I think it reasonable to say that if this organisation could argue that it did not reduce CO2 emissions, it certainly would have said so.
In the second paper above, White refers to an Irish study and says "The Irish evidence shows that as the level of wind capacity increases, the CO2 emissions actually increase as a direct result of having to cope with the variation of wind-power output." See [14]. This actually appears to be a mis-quoting of the Irish study, which in its section on CO2 emissions states clearly: "Producing electricity from wind reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore leads to emissions savings." It specifically cites figures ranging from 0.59 tonnes per MWh for low penetration of 500 MW of wind capacity, in line with the UK figures of 0.43 t/MWh, to 0.3 t/MWh at 3500 MW. I cannot find a single point in this report that supports his citation that CO2 emissions increase (although I could have missed something in the long document). The amount of reduction per unit of generation declines as the amount of wind increases, but it never increases emissions in the study White cites. (And to get ahead of a potential counterpoint - yes, it is theoretically possible that at some levels it would increase CO2, but those would have to be high levels of penetration indeed).
In all the cases I have been able to find, opponents debate or question the amount of CO2 emissions "saved", and particularly the reduction in CO2 per dollar spent, but can find only two quotes suggesting there is no reduction (one is the Irish study, and the other is, alas, not on the web to verify, as it is a reference in the REF paper). Given that IPCC, U.S. and Brit governments all show reductions (with specific costing for reduction, as referenced in the REF paper), the reduction is a firm, credible consensus, and quite neutral. Since wind consumes no CO2 in operation, and modest/comparable amounts in construction, the case would have to be made on the increased emissions through balancing. At any rate, the Irish study is a credible reference backing the comment that it reduces emissions.
If there are questions that there is any reduction, I think it reasonable to say that the "burden of proof" in this case is on the skeptics. I look forward to seeing some - I just haven't been able to find any credible ones.--Gregalton 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
None of these examples show a reduction of carbon emissions. They only claim it. Since we're talking about major industrial development, the burden of proof is obviously on the proponents to show real evidence. There is a famous quote from Flemming Nissen, Head of Development at the Elsam utility in Denmark: "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions." --Kerberos 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps I should have said "burden of credible scientific estimate." Otherwise to meet the challenge of proof, I assume a study would have to measure the CO2 output of every powerplant on a given grid? That strikes me as unreasonable. Irrespective of ontological discussions of the nature of proof, consensus in credible, referenced published sources is that wind reduces CO2 and other noxious emissions compared to fossil fuel generation. Since wind itself produces no direct CO2, it is reasonable to say that its use to produce electricity produces less CO2 than generating sources which directly emit CO2; and since it produces no direct emissions, any secondary effects on emissions will have to be estimated. Claims/estimates that it increases emissions (or results in no reduction) have not been documented.
Where are the "credible, referenced published sources" showing a reduction of CO2 et al. by wind on the grid? If I walk to the store but have you drive behind me in case I get tired, I have not saved gas, even though walking does not use gas. That seems to be the case with wind. It would be simple to show if it does: How much of various fuels per kWh consumed were used before wind, and how much after? Note that the issue is not how much electricity is generated from each fuel, but how much fuel is actually used, because the intermittency and variability of wind requires more spinning standby, fuel-using ramping, and inefficient loads. (Not to mention that if there is hydro available, that's the source most likely to be displaced by wind, not polluting fossil fuels.) --Kerberos 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Actual CO2 savings are dependant on what fossil fuel plant is displaced, reduced by efficiency losses in thermal plant affected by intermittency and additional use of reserve and response. As we show in Ch. 3, these losses are a small proportion of the energy provided. Links to other grids can mean that CO2 savings are ‘exported’ so might not be realised in the country of origin. But the CO2 savings are, within a few percentage points, directly linked to the energy that renewable stations generate."[15] (My bold) Please read the notes on this publication: essentially, peer-reviewed study that summarizes a number of studies (primarily produced by grid operators). This is apart from several others already shown.
I understand your point, but it has essentially been shown to not be the case: despite some efficiency losses and very small standby, the CO2 reduction is "directly linked to the energy that renewable stations generate." There are potential extreme theoretical cases where this would not apply, but not an issue for most actual grids. Despite the speculation that spinning standby etc are required, the amount required is substantially less than the amount of wind on the system. Or to use your car analogy: if "I" am heavy enough, fuel savings would result from reduced load on the engine; car does not have to proceed at my walking pace, and will not be idling all the time.
Hydro comment does not apply in most cases: a) hydro as close-to-zero marginal cost source would not make sense to displace; b) difference for hydro is storage capacity, providing ability to arbitrage between high and low cost periods - hydro is not displaced most of the time, but deferred, at least some of the time to periods when it can displace fossil fuel plant for peaking. See study for notes on complementarity between wind and hydro in e.g. Scandinavia. Let alone the fact that most jurisdictions have limited hydro or limited capacity for hydro expansion - so incremental growth may need to come from wind, "displacing" new fossil fuel stations.
Still no actual citations stating that there is no CO2 reduction.--Gregalton 05:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the famous quote from Flemming Nissen. Perhaps you could provide the source? I have found the following, which is in Danish. I don't read Danish, so if you can find a version in English, that would be helpful. Of the many web pages that quote this presentation, all seemingly referring to the same May 27, 2004, conference, none give more detail (and few even provide the reference). The following site quotes him this way, though: "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions" (beyond the present capacity) (my italics, but quoting from the website). This implies that the original presentation's quote was intended to underline that there is indeed an issue, in the current Danish grid configuration, which would limit CO2 reductions beyond some high penetration limit. This is entirely different from the way the quote is being used - the effect of increased development in Denmark, meaning above approximately 20% level, does not apply to most other grids at present. I conclude this quote is being widely misused, intentionally or not.--Gregalton 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You so far have not tackled the question of needing conventional power station back-up in case the wind fails and demand is high. You also accept the POV position that CO2 "causes " "global warming". The assertion is very far from proven, and the debate rages on. The article should accept that the argument is ongoing. The CO2 arguments is based on questionable science, and is statistical in nature rather than fundamental. Cosmic ray and solar activity are two recent counter-arguments to man-made global warming for example. Peterlewis 06:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Article mentions increased need for operating reserve. As does article intermittent power sources. As do various external references and citations. So the question seems to have been "tackled" for the purposes of this article. What do you specifically object to or want?
Regardless of whether "I" accept CO2 position, article is currently quite neutral: it says wind reduces emissions of CO2, commonly known as a greenhouse gas (actually, it says "may" reduce greenhouse gas emissions whereas I think it is clear that it reduces CO2 emissions, as per the citations and credible studies, and will reinstate unless there are references to support the "may" qualification). It says greenhouse gases may contribute to global warming, and that therefore CO2 as greenhouse gas may impose costs to society (an externality) in form of global warming. In what way could this possibly be made more neutral? Please be specific. You have added text disputing global warming, removed by me because this is not a page about global warming and its existence, etc. There are a whole bunch of arguments about global warming and many other issues that should be documented and contributed to this page or this page.--Gregalton 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You so far have not tackled the question of needing conventional power station back-up in case the wind fails and demand is high." Indeed, the article DOES call this out; "wind energy is not dispatchable as for fuel-fired power plants; additional output cannot be supplied in response to load demand."
Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sources
Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sources
"You also accept the POV position that CO2 "causes " "global warming". The assertion is very far from proven, and the debate rages on." The prevailing scientific opinion is now "very likely" that GHG emissions are inducing most of the current experienced warming. Political and pundit debate are not the focus of this article.
"Cosmic ray and solar activity are two recent counter-arguments to man-made global warming for example." Indeed, solar variation CAN be a forcing component, though estimates of the effects since 1950 have shown a slight cooling effect. Since 1750, there has been a slight warming effect (see chart at right of the various forcings, and note the aggregation on the right hand side of the anthropgenic components). --Skyemoor 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Given no specific citations, I have firmed the article text. And will add this quote from the UK Energy Research Council as well: "It is sometimes said that wind energy, for example, does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions because the intermittent nature of its output means it needs to be backed up by fossil fuel plant. Wind turbines do

not displace fossil generating capacity on a one-for-one basis. But it is unambiguously the case that wind energy can displace fossil fuel-based generation, reducing both fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions." [16] --Gregalton 06:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear typo

I found the word oshore while running a spellcheck. I cannot tell if this should be onshore or offshore by the context. Illinoisavonlady 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for catching this.--Gregalton 06:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utilization - 1MW = 160 people.

In the section on utilization it states The average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average consumption of about 160 American households.
Output of one megawatt of wind power is : 1000kW x 35% capacity = 350kW (3,066MWh/yr). If Americans use 9kw (78.8MWh/yr)[17] then the output of 1MW is equivalent to 39 American people. (11.4kW gross, 9kW useful). How can using the 160 households be justified? Also googled for the 160 figure and couldn't find a source - does anyone know where it comes from? I will remove this figure next week if no-one can shed some light on the matter. - Ctbolt 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The doc you used had a typo - it should have said net 9kWh (kilo-watt hours) per person, not kW. See also IEA world consumption figures, where US is given as consuming 13338 kWh per person per year (presumably this is the gross, which roughly matches the figures above allowing for different base yars). Hence the calculation is 3,066,000 kWh per year divided by 9,000 kWh per year, or 340 individuals. The household figure is presumably based upon a figure of about 2.1 individuals per household, which sounds about right. Even using the IEA gross figures gives 230 individuals. (As a side note, the World energy resources Wiki article appears to be hopelessly messed up, as do many other articles, about the distinction between kWh and kW). Anyway, here's hoping I haven't committed some similar error. And I agree with you that whatever the "right" answer is, this should be referenced. Best,--Gregalton 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gregalton, looks to be in the ballpark. - Ctbolt 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table on penetration limits?

Does anyone have information on wind penetration that could be put in a table? Preferably by grid, but by country would also be useful.--Gregalton 09:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy equals E?

Can someone double check that? E normally stands for voltage, what is this formula? Is it power or voltage? shown at line 33 on last edit. Illinoisavonlady 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

V is also used for voltage. Have you ever heard the formula E=mc2 (actually the best known formula in the world)? My recollection is that E = energy in that formula. 199.125.109.33 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

The article says "Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the United States for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50." However, this was a deeply flawed study, one which didn't make any allowance for backup power or storage costs, and which used a capital cost for nuclear units which was 40% too high.[18] You'll find a better comparison from the UK in Economics of new nuclear power plants. The Clean coal and Carbon capture and storage pages also have economics data. Simesa 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been no comment, I've added the UK study from Economics of new nuclear power plants (rather than simply reference the article). This is fairly recent and properly cited from a reputable source. Simesa 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I share the concern that some of these studies may be less reliable than others, but I've trimmed the paragraph to simply say higher costs have been estimated in other studies. The para added seemed long and too much about nuclear energy, when the salient point was that estimates can vary dramatically. To be honest, it's seemed to me for a while that this may eventually call for a separate article on this issue, because otherwise the whole article could get excessively long.--Gregalton 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
One unified article on new power generation economics does seem to be a good idea. Simesa 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a note inside Economics of new nuclear power plants. Maybe we can construct the article tomorrow. We will have some difficulty, as the CCAS info kisn't easy to make comparisons to. Also, Rwendland had an interesting point - companies prefer quick repayment, to avoid interest rate uncertainty - we'll have to note that. Simesa 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
On your comment about 'using a capital cost too high by 40%', I didn't see the specific point made in your reference. Could you help a blind man and show the way more specifically?
It seems to me the para in this article states fairly clearly that estimates of cost vary greatly depending on assumptions like years of service/capital cost; perhaps the best way to deal with this in this article is to cite one or two and give a range. Best,--Gregalton 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, another editor pointed out that costs were unclear. Up in "Capital costs", we see that "overnight capital costs" are advertised as between $1,000 and $1,250 per MWe for the AP1000 and ESBWR. Construction timetables are 45 months for an ESBWR and similar for an AP1000. If we assume a linear spending of the money over the 45 months, we should be able to arrive at a cost per MWe at commercial operation. Using an 8% interest rate, I get a range of $1,162 to $1,452 per MWe installed (average $1,307) The report assumed $1980. (1980-1307)/1307 = 52% too high. (At 10% it's 46% too high.) Simesa 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen their sources or calcs, and no time to right now, so this is pure speculation: the rate you're using may be much lower than they used. It's not uncommon to use much higher rates during construction to allow for construction risk, technology risk, execution risk, potential cost overruns, construction delays, etc (given the history for nuclear in some jurisdictions, cost overruns and potential delays may well be the explanation for the divergence). 20% rates during this phase are not uncommon for greenfield projects in other sectors. No comment from me on whether or not this is reasonable, though.--Gregalton 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We should rephrase the existing comment or outright delete it. Simesa 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Which comment?--Gregalton 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That the capital cost assumed for the nuclear unit was 40% too high. It's supported in the nuclear economics article but won't be in the new article. Simesa 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now taken a look at that article. Despite the reputable source, the methodology for allocating cost of intermittency is a) massively higher than other sources (see the links here and at intermittent power sources (the UK ERC study is a review and has numbers an order of magnitude lower; and b) rather simplistic (wind provides 35%, capacity, therefore 65% standby is needed, and all capacity costs should be allocated to wind). For one example of why this approach is simplistic, the 'charge' for standby should grow depending on the penetration, and they have not addressed this; at low levels, the cost of standby is close to nil. I would like to do a bit more research about this article since I have rarely heard it referenced in the context of wind, but its location at countryguardian.net (rabid anti-wind group) makes me a bit skeptical - in addition to the simplistic methodology. Could I respectfully suggest linking the article as published by the Royal Academy (including other commentary papers, for example)? It is available here.--Gregalton 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, primary source is always better. Simesa 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a title for the new article. "New power generation economics"? "Economic comparisons of new electricity sources"? Feel free to start it. Simesa 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)