Every day is another adventure in cyberspace, and today I encountered a lecture by T. Boone Pickens on the possibilities of solving at least some percentage of our energy problem by creating wind farms.
Anyone who has been to Maui or driven across West Texas has seen a wind farm, where great rows of gigantic spiraling windmills turn silently in response to unseen air currents. Pickens, an oil man, suggests that we are in crisis, but that we have the perfect wind corridor cutting through the middle of the country. We used to hear about it in the theme song from “Oklahoma!” – where the wind comes whipping down the plains. He recommends making a coordinated effort that includes cooperation from everyone to capture that wind and put it to use.
Sounds pretty good to me. See what you think.
The wind farm idea has a lot of problems. First, in order to be viable, it requires massive amounts of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies. Second, in Texas, last summer, we had brown and black outs because the wind quit blowing. Third, the infrastructure required to collect electricity from a wind farm and get it together in sufficient amounts to be usefull is extremely large. And expensive.
Wind is not the answer. It can provide some extra power here and there, but it will not be a significant source.
Folks like T. Boone Pickens like the idea because they can get government subsidies to build the wind farms, get a break on taxes for green energy and sell the juice at an elevated price as well. Always follow the money. Folks don’t do things out of the goodness of their hearts.
Good to have your input. Anybody else have thoughts about harnessing energy from the wind?
My Chem Prof. said anything that produces power-pollutes. I can imagine at some future date the problem comes up of producing power for people, food for people, or food (gasohol) for cars, in land with wind farms.
modern windmills are 80% recyclable, produce no waste (like nuclear energy or coal) and cost very little to maintain. They do produce a small amount of noise, but placing them in fields minimizes that negative effect. Power grids are already in place, so I do not know what subsidies are needed for. Wind is free, and the power it generates is much like the power generated from a waterfall. What could be better than that! It’s the best alternative we’ve got at this point, in my opinion. Windimlls last about 20 years, by the way. Thanks for the article.
I have to disagree with the first writers opinion, believing the brown outs were due to lack of wind gusts, more likely it was (is) a problem with the power grid. The electrical power system here in the US is so antiquated that in high use periods is un- able to carry the demand … the wind towers are purposely designed with the fan blades high above ground level where there is “almost” a constant wind…
Another problem is, “How do you store electrical power for hundreds of houses, and factories?”. I remember, when I was living in Arizona, the weatherman saying the winds would gust to 5 MPH today! Wind power relies on the wind and if there is no wind or not enough wind then backups are needed. Batteries to supply hundreds of houses and factories are out of the question. Natural gas, coal, or nuclear power generators would be a good backup. I haven’t heard of a practical fuel cell that would power 100′s of houses and factories.
Wind is not constant, Susan. The blackouts and brownouts were indeed caused by a lack of wind.
Our power grid is indeed a problem. In fact, more windfarms will require a huge increase in infrastructure. Each windmill generates a very small amount of electricity. So, the windmills must be connected to a gathering network that gets all of the power to a central location in an amount large enough to be worth kicking up to transmission voltage. the whole windfarm actually doesn’t produce much power in it’s entirety. The amount of cable, control systems and step-up transformers is very high relative to the amount of electricity being produced.
The windmills are expensive to build and require maintenance. Since the power produced is very little compared to the cost of construction and maintenance, the system depends on taxpayer funded subsidies to be viable. The cost of the bureaucracy and the subsidies that actually get to the producer must be added to the price paid by the consumer to get an accurate read on the cost of wind energy.
Wind energy can be a small source of back-up power. It never hurts to have more than we need in case of failures of other parts of the system. Realistically, however, I think the answers will be in micro-powerplants in each of our homes taht will provide for a lot of what we use. the downside is that if we are all connected back to the grid, the folks that fix the system after storm damage and the like are at risk from the current being baackfed into the system.
These are not simple problems and they don’t have simple or cheap solutions. It will take a lot of folks working dilligently to keep our lifestyle working.
Think about it: if we lose electricity, how will our lives change? No TV, no internet, no cell phones, no hairdriers, no automobiles, no air conditioning, no light at night, heat from fire only, no radio, little food not produced locally. It will be very different. In fact, without electricity, we will be living in a manner similar to that of the 1700′s.
Great problems require great solutions. Keep in mind that most “solutions” from government are very expensive and don’t work.
A. P. Garcia is correct, we have no way to store significant amounts of electricity. We either use it when it is produced, or we lose it.
Disasters can be such a devastating problem. One can only hope that no one is harmed when one strikes.
The problem here is that we have contributors like Benjamin Napier who have a limited understanding of wind power and energy production in general. Not all regions possess adequate wind resources. Wind is not a solution for all regions. It is, however, a significant source of energy. 35 times the current electrical production on Earth may be captured by wind power. But it won’t be in places where people currently live. Cities may have to relocate as the human population gradually shrinks. Moreover, it is increasingly likely that homes will need to produce the energy required to operate them. And what electrical devices we use will also likely change. Huge energy wasters like air conditioning, electric heating, electric cooking, electric hot water will all be eliminted by other more efficient processes such as efficient use of solar gain, thermal storage, and insulative properties. Impressively, for about 1/10th the power consumption, you can substitute LED lighting for incandescent lighting. And my favourite: eliminate the clock displays on microwaves, coffee makers, televisions, dvd players, stereos and the like. In the USA this would eliminate the need of 3 medium-sized generation stations. The amount of energy to be conserved is staggering.
sab bakwas haiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Well written blog post.. I enjoy visiting your blog for the reason that you guys usually write well written articles about computers and new technology. I enjoyed it once again. I am going to subscribe to the websites feed. I plan to add this blog to my faves.Take Care PS: I can’t live without new cars in 2011..
one thing i’d like to know is are there any longer term problems with wind power? could for example the weather system be affected, if enough wind turbines were built?
I think wind farms aren’t necessarily the most viable. They are very expensive, and in a test done at QMU in London it was found that only 5% are regularly working. Not to mention they have huge costs, and are very unattractive for the nearby area. In areas where there are not strong or constant winds it won’t work as other comments mentioned.
I think its a next step on the right track, but not a viable solution that we can rely on.
I definitely get pleasure from reading any remarks left on ones own blog a few of these people are really fascinating.