T Boone Pickens abandons wind farm plans

[Leonidas]

Also, I'm not sure if you are talking about the maximum density of the windmills ( 1 per .75 acres), or the land that one uses. In the ref, he is talking about trying to get a large % of power from wind, which means you need to space them as closely as possible. At some point, they start to interfere with each other and the output diminishes. That is different than saying one can be placed on .75 acres (or maybe they *are* the same, but I can't tell from your wording).

Here's a Google satellite view of one of the wind farms in Pecos County (just northwest of Fort Stockton). bakersfield, texas - Google Maps

They're in rows along the roads there (zoom in and look at the shadows to make out where the turbines are placed) about 600-700 feet apart. Not placed in depth like a field though. But if you drive down I-10 back to the east you will see trucks hauling blades, towers and generators toward Pecos County, so I think eventually they may place them in depth. I don't know if all of them are going to Pecos County, but it averages several complete windmills each day. As is, I would say if you drew a square box around each unit the area would be larger than an acre.

Fun note - grab the right edge of the screen with the hand tool and drag it to the left twice, and you're looking at the Yates Oil Field just outside of Iraan (pronounced Ira-Ann). It is one of the larger oil fields ever - a billion barrels of oil produced by 1985, and it still brings in 27 million bbls of oil and 56 million c.f. of gas annually. Oilfield History, The Yates Oil Field Near Iraan In West Texas

 

[GoodSense]

A rough rule of thumb is to place 1 turbine every 100 - 150 acres to avoid wake effects between turbines. Since each turbine takes up less than 1 acre of land, the other 99 - 149 acres can still be used for farming.

The capacity factor varies depending on tower height, blade length, type of turbine, wake losses, line losses, etc. For IL, I would say for new wind farms, the capacity factor is somewhere between 27% and 34% (very rarely that high) after all the losses. For the Dakotas, 35% or higher is common. MN and IA could be decent, too. The difference between 80-meter and 100-meter towers is quite significant, too, and that will depend on local ordinance, setbacks, etc.

The quoted capacity factor is the average production. During peak (night and winter) it could be wasted depending on the availability of transmission lines. That was essentially why Pickens abandoned his plan. This could easily happen in the Dakotas and Texas. But if the wind farms are located in areas with high demand and good transmission, it's less likely to happen.

During construction the land taken out of production is much greater due to transportation, trenching, and construction needs. After construction, access roads are generally narrowed down to half of its previous width, large turning radius removed, and foundation area filled back with soil.

 

[Free To Canoe]

No doubt, wind generators placed in areas where there isn't much wind is a loss.
And as everyone has pointed out (myself included) residential wind generation is less efficient than commercial. That is part of the reason I didn't go the wind route and buy wind generated energy from my utility.
Few people will jump on a 5k to 15k investment without some research. However, there are always exceptions.
When calculating the costs of wind vs coal, do we also include the cancer, heart disease, and asthma caused by coal plants vs the annoyance of the sound of wind generators?
I ask not to be a smart ass I ask because there are lots of costs we don't consider. Rambler brought up an excellent point of the cost of transmition lines. What other costs are we not considering?

Birds and especially bats don't like wind farms.

Birds don’t like wind farms

This could be a show stopper. Especially on migration routes.

Free to canoe

 

[ERD50]

Birds and especially bats don't like wind farms.

Birds don’t like wind farms

This could be a show stopper. Especially on migration routes.

Free to canoe

The trouble with "studies" like that is, they do not consider the alternative.

How many bats and birds would be killed by the pollution from generating 7,500GW with coal? How many birds are killed due to the habitat destruction takes place to mine that coal? How many birds are hit by the trains carrying the coal to the plants? And so on. So we don't know if windmills are "good" or "bad" for birds and bats, w/o looking at the whole picture.

That's another reason I'm in favor of "passive conservation" first. No bats have ever been killed by adjusting a thermostat, or *not* making that trip into town

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Birds and especially bats don't like wind farms.

Birds don’t like wind farms

This could be a show stopper. Especially on migration routes.

Free to canoe

In addition to ERD's comment, also consider that house cats kill far more birds than wind generators

 

[CCdaCE]

No doubt, wind generators placed in areas where there isn't much wind is a loss.
And as everyone has pointed out (myself included) residential wind generation is less efficient than commercial. That is part of the reason I didn't go the wind route and buy wind generated energy from my utility.
Few people will jump on a 5k to 15k investment without some research. However, there are always exceptions.
When calculating the costs of wind vs coal, do we also include the cancer, heart disease, and asthma caused by coal plants vs the annoyance of the sound of wind generators?
I ask not to be a smart ass I ask because there are lots of costs we don't consider. Rambler brought up an excellent point of the cost of transmition lines. What other costs are we not considering?

The cost that I haven't seen mentioned is that which is the 800 lb. gorilla, the railroads.

So, they move more than just coal on any particular rail line; pick 10% of the capacity or something, then. Each train leaves Dakotas/Montana/Wyoming with approx. 16,000 tons of coal and goes 300-500 mi., minimum. How many resources does that take? What about the coal that blows out of the rail cars along the way, etc. etc.

The locomotive refueling yard (Bailey Yard) for Union Pacific uses 14-20 million gallons of diesel a month. More Bailey Info.

/end rant.

When I visited Bailey Yard, the numbers were astounding. And that's just one railroad. So, what's the cost to get the coal to the power plant and then transmission lines to distribute electricity vs. moving the wind generators to the wind and getting the wind generated power distributed.

-CC

 

[samclem]

The cost that I haven't seen mentioned is that which is the 800 lb. gorilla, the railroads.

. . . . So, what's the cost to get the coal to the power plant and then transmission lines to distribute electricity vs. moving the wind generators to the wind and getting the wind generated power distributed.

The energy cost of moving the coal is very small. Rail transport typically uses .002 gallons of fuel per ton/mile. So, to move 1 ton of coal 500 miles uses 1 gallon of diesel fuel. That gallon of diesel fuel contains 130 K BTUs, and a ton of coal contains approx 24,000 K BTUs (anthracite coal) or 14,000 K BTUs (lignite coal). So, moving the coal had an energy cost of somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the energy content of the coal. Actually, moving the coal by rail entails far lower energy costs (i.e. is more efficient) than moving the resultant electricity the same distance over the power grid. If we cared more about energy efficiency than air quality in our cities, we'd ship the coal right to our cities and burn it there.

The small amount of coal blown out of the cars isn't lost--it'll just be buried to be recycled in the ground and re-dug up in a few million years.

 

[GoodSense]

I wonder about that also... while in Hawaii (and someone else mentioned about one wind farm in Hawaii)... we were going to the southermost part of the US... and there is a wind farm there.... and NONE of them were turning even though there was a stiff wind... most looked old and rusted, but there was another section in the distance that looked new...

SOOOO, if you have a wind farm, I would think that this would be your FIRST source of energy if you want to be green...

The biggest manufacturers of utility-scale wind turbines are Vestas, GE, Gamesa, and Siemens, pretty much in that order. The other names you hear often are Clipper, Suzlon, Acciona, Mitsubishi, RePower, and a few others.

I would say GE is better than overage in terms of quality, although they did have a tower collapse earlier this year due to faulty wiring. Suzlon had a series of blade problems. Compared with other heavy industries, though, I think the overall quality isn't bad.

New turbines made today have much better reliability than those made even 10 years ago. The older ones indeed had a lot of issues. The new ones made today are designed to have a 25-year useful life or so. i believe Altamont was developed in the 80s, so it's probably close to being obsolete if not already.

Turbines shut down for many reasons. It is maintained twice a year. It can be struck by lightning. It will shut down if the wind is too strong (often somewhere between 50 - 60 m/h), and will need to be manually restarted. On rare occasions, if blade issues are discovered, the turbines may need to be retrofitted with new blades.

As you suspected, turbines are also shut down when there is too much supply of electricity and not enough demand. I think that happens most often in the late evening/early morning, when not enough people are using electricity. It is far easier to shut down a wind farm than a nuclear power plant or coal plant.

 

[ERD50]

So, what's the cost to get the coal to the power plant and then transmission lines to distribute electricity vs. moving the wind generators to the wind and getting the wind generated power distributed.

-CC

That is why I tend to look at the economics to give us an estimate of the energy involved.

In this case, the coal plant charges for their electricity. So, they have to include the cost of shipping the coal, and the coal that fell off, and the losses and cost in distribution in their kWh price. It all has to get loaded into the cost, or they could not make money.

Environmental issues are probably not fully accounted for, producers get a "free ride" for much of the damage they cause. And govt subsidies knock the formulas out of whack, which is why I don't like govt subsidies.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

The locomotive refueling yard (Bailey Yard) for Union Pacific uses 14-20 million gallons of diesel a month.

Rail transport typically uses .002 gallons of fuel per ton/mile. .... So, moving the coal had an energy cost of somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the energy content of the coal.

This is a perfect example and response to one of the problems that MacKay points out in "Sustainable Energy — without the hot air " - using numbers out of context. While 14-20 million gallons of diesel is a "huge" number, intended to impress, it tells us nothing about the context. How much coal was moved? So samclem put it in context for us, which is much more meaningful.

1% is much less "scary" than "millions of gallons of diesel", but which leads to better decisions?

BTW, I was surprised that shipping coal is more efficient than shipping electrons. I've heard an 8% number used for average losses in electricity distribution. So instead of personal windmills, should we have personal coal fired electrical plants in our yards? Nah - the same poor relative efficiency due economy of scale would apply - for windmills and coal plants.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

Driving through Kansas I was surprised at how few turbines I saw (route 70). There was a strong steady wind all the way across the state.

I see that there are a lot of wind projects on the drawing board, however:

BTW, I was surprised that shipping coal is more efficient than shipping electrons. I've heard an 8% number used for average losses in electricity distribution.

Are you talking about economic efficiency, or just power loss? For example, it could cost 10 times as much to move the coal, but unless some of the "briquettes" fall off the train, there's very little power loss.

 

[ERD50]

Are you talking about economic efficiency, or just power loss? For example, it could cost 10 times as much to move the coal, but unless some of the "briquettes" fall off the train, there's very little power loss.

Well, samclem put it in terms of BTUs, so it keeps it on equal footing. True, some BTUs cost more than others, but w/o looking it up I'd guess that a BTU of coal costs roughly (within 2:1) the same as a BTU of diesel (see edit).

In the case of electricity distribution, it is electricity (KWhrs) that is being lost. In the case of coal, it is diesel that is being lost, but you equate the diesel energy to the coal energy to figure how much "coal equivalent" energy is being lost, though not the coal itself.

If you think about it, these calculations are done all the time. The electric company figures the cost of thicker copper wires and supports versus the electrical losses. It all comes down to costs, but a lot of that cost is the embedded (embodied?) energy.

edit/add - note that just cost/BTU isn't really the best measure - samclem's numbers were good, because it shows the actual BTUs *used* to perform the task (gallons of fuel per ton/mile). This way, efficiencies in using the BTUs are accounted for.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I'll be impressed when I see...

a windmill powered windmill factory

Actually, that is a somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" statement, the ref that Zathras provided showed that commercial wind turbines have a very positive EROI. So they actually look pretty good in that regard.

I've said the same about solar cells, the EROI is not as good with those.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Driving through Kansas I was surprised at how few turbines I saw (route 70). There was a strong steady wind all the way across the state.

But was the "strong steady wind" still there after you left?

 

[CCdaCE]

This is a perfect example and response to one of the problems that MacKay points out in "Sustainable Energy — without the hot air " - using numbers out of context. While 14-20 million gallons of diesel is a "huge" number, intended to impress, it tells us nothing about the context. How much coal was moved? So samclem put it in context for us, which is much more meaningful.

1% is much less "scary" than "millions of gallons of diesel", but which leads to better decisions?

BTW, I was surprised that shipping coal is more efficient than shipping electrons. I've heard an 8% number used for average losses in electricity distribution. So instead of personal windmills, should we have personal coal fired electrical plants in our yards? Nah - the same poor relative efficiency due economy of scale would apply - for windmills and coal plants.

-ERD50

The big numbers can work both ways. Sure it's a fraction of the BTU's. "We only used millons of gallons of diesel a month because we burn a trillion tons of coal." That makes it OK?

It's all relative, not trying to pick a fight, etc. But, when 16 coal trains a day on one mainline aren't enough, maybe it's time to turn off some lights/my computer/etc. Heh.

So, as it stands now, cost of moving the coal to the plant, distributing the electricity is cheaper than moving the turbines to the wind and distributing the electricity due to "economies of scale", and not taking environmental factors into account. I think I'm stating the obvious, but, pure economics is our only measure, now. Whereas the question was what factors aren't taken into account. Mostly everyone's saying the coal transport and transmission issues have been taken into account. Correct?

-CC

 

[samclem]

So, as it stands now, cost of moving the coal to the plant, distributing the electricity is cheaper than moving the turbines to the wind and distributing the electricity due to "economies of scale", and not taking environmental factors into account. I think I'm stating the obvious, but, pure economics is our only measure, now. Whereas the question was what factors aren't taken into account. Mostly everyone's saying the coal transport and transmission issues have been taken into account. Correct?
-CC

Yes, correct, but it's useful not to lose sight of the observation that ERD50 made earlier: in some respects, the economics may be a good indicator of the underlying energy impact (and, to some degree, total economic costs) of the various options. Because energy costs sometimes make up a big portion of the economic costs of various options, often the most cost-effective choice is also the one that uses the least energy. For example, if wind power is more expensive for consumers to purchase than electricity made from coal, we should at least investigate why this is so. It might be that the embodied energy used in fabrication of the wind turbines, towers, and connecting transmission wires is very large (which might be why they are expensive), maybe large enough that energy payback period exceeds the expected life of the equipment. Higher costs for wind power at the meter might partially be because of the relatively large transmission transmission losses that accrue as the electricity trickles in from a large number of spread-out turbines to the larger wires, and the long distances between where the wind is harvested and where the power is used. At any rate, economics should be seen as an important indicator of possible parallel energy costs underlying the options.

 

[ERD50]

The big numbers can work both ways. Sure it's a fraction of the BTU's. "We only used millons of gallons of diesel a month because we burn a trillion tons of coal." That makes it OK?

It's all relative, not trying to pick a fight, etc. But, when 16 coal trains a day on one mainline aren't enough, maybe it's time to turn off some lights/my computer/etc. Heh.

I agree, and the more I look into this, the more I'm convinced that "passive conservation" (turning off the lights, computer, etc) is the first and best payoff.

Whereas the question was what factors aren't taken into account.

I'll add to samclem's comments... that it is true, the environmental impacts are not all included in the energy we buy. If they were, it would be a much more level playing field, with the true "green" energy sources having a lower relative cost, and a better chance in the market.

But that means adding a tax to fossil fuels. That tax could be used to repair environmental damage where possible, or used to research cleaner fuels, or just returned to the public in an effort to push renewables. It does not appear that we have the political will to do that.

-ERD50

 

[Ronstar]

Went through the Mendota Hills Wind Farm yesterday. Only a few were stirring (maybe 10 mph wind)

Mendota Hills Wind Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wind farm produces about 110 million kilowatt hours annually (In comparison, the local nuke plant puts out 19,657 million)

 

[Free To Canoe]

In addition to ERD's comment, also consider that house cats kill far more birds than wind generators

I am just pointing out one of the costs.

Does your cat kill more birds than one of those large wind generators?
Has your cat brought home a hawk lately? How about any bats? Eagles?

Cats kill more birds than wind generators. There are many more cats now. But if there is a large numbers increase in wind farms, cat to wind mill ratio will no doubt change.

Wind farms with the giant windmill technologies are a new thing and there are effects happening that people are still learning about. I was talking to a bat expert that is studying this and other reasons why the bats in the Eastern US are declining. He says that bats are killed just by the barametric pressure change of the blades as they spin.

It all sounds so good. Why do that nasty stuff. Just use a clean beautiful windmill. This excellent thread points out that there are many costs and that some of them are hidden.

It is good to look at the ROI. It is also good to look closely at the details in order to make a good investment.

Free to canoe

 

[Zathras]

I am just pointing out one of the costs.

But doing so without context.
This is an exellent example of why the book 'Sustainable energy without all the hot air' is such a refreshing bit of work.

Yes, care needs to be taken in the placement of wind turbines so they are not directly in migration patterns. Bat kills are not well understood yet as we don't know what the total population numbers are of bats so the impact is difficult to ascertain. More study is being done.

But we need context. How many birds are killed each year in comparison to the approximate total population? In 2003 it was estimated that 37,000 birds in the US were killed by wind generators. While that is a large number, it is 3 thousandths of one percent.
Cars, cats and buildings kill more.

Yes, there are more cats than wind generators. Do you think that is ever likely to change? There will always be more cats than wind generators, and yes the ratio will change, but it will always be heavily in favor of the cats.

In summary, I do agree with you that we should keep in mind the costs. But we should do so in context, not just with emotional arguments that don't show the whole story.

 

[ERD50]

Yes, there are more cats than wind generators. Do you think that is ever likely to change? There will always be more cats than wind generators, and yes the ratio will change, but it will always be heavily in favor of the cats.

So what we need is, a cat killing attachment on the windmills. Lure the cats in with a few dead birds as bait, then whollop the cats with a blade!

With the right ratio, we should be able to make the windmills a net neutral in terms of bird kills. Hey, if you are gonna make omelets, you gotta break a few eggs .


-ERD50 < from the cat lovers

 

[Zathras]

Roflmao

 

[calmloki]

Wind power = noise and flickering shadows - so distracting! Coal burns dirty = nasty deposits on the buildings and lungs. Dams hurt fish runs. Solar takes up too much area and the collectors are expensive to build and require cleaning to maintain efficiency. Conservation is cheap and effective, but dammit - we're Americans!

Comes the answer: Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes | Environment | The Observer

">

 

[REWahoo]

Hey, this thread is about a different Pickens...

 

[Nords]

Solar takes up too much area and the collectors are expensive to build and require cleaning to maintain efficiency.

I'm guessing that's sarcasm...