To Meet Wind Power Goals, Government Action Needed

Further government intervention will be required in order to meet the policy goal of supplying 20% of US power needs by 2030, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Although windpower currently provides only about 1% of U.S. electricity needs, it is growing more rapidly than any other energy source. In 2007, over 5,000 megawatts of new wind generating capacity were installed in the United States, second only to new natural gas-fired generating capacity. Wind power has become “mainstream” in many
regions of the country, and is no longer considered an “alternative” energy source.

Federal wind power policy has centered primarily on the production tax credit [PTC], a business incentive to operate wind facilities. The PTC is set to expire on December 31, 2008. Analysts and wind industry representatives argue that the on-again off-again nature of the PTC is inefficient and leads to higher costs for the industry.

While there is often bipartisan support for the PTC in Congress, debate centers more fundamentally on how to offset its revenue losses. A federal renewable portfolio standard — which would mandate wind power levels — was rejected in the Senate in late 2007; its future is uncertain.

Continued expansion of wind power in the United States could be slowed by lack of transmission capacity and expiration of the federal renewable production tax credit.

On the other hand, federal policy on climate change, expected by many in the next Congress, would likely put a value on carbon dioxide emissions and give wind power additional advantages compared to coal- and natural gas-based electricity.

 

The CRS findings are similar to those set out in the annual wind energy report from the Department of the Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

Comments

[jegan ;-)]

We need and intensive solar and wind program. I'd like to see a few cents added to the price of a gallon of gas each month until we reach par with Europe. Use the funds to finance real wind projects and solar on homes. The funds should be invested in companies that have factories here in the US and research into both forms of energy and efficient batteries - Again here in the US. Lets try to regain our prominence in some form of activity aside from blowing holes in foreign countries.

[floorboard]

I traveled out West as a boy and remember the beautiful landscape. I have seen pictures of hundreds of windmills on some of the same kind of landscape. It's unsightly. I believe the phrase is "ruins the environment." And they kill lot's of birds. Eagles too. Fueling America takes a magnificient amount of fuel. Oil and Nuclear can do it. And it keeps the wealth coming and can (if applied) take down our deficit and give us the resources to develop cleaner and lasting energies. Alternative energies add to the deficit and size of government.
We people who still think this is the best large country in the world are sorry for your mioptic view of America John.

[khwender]

Floorboard , what a bunch of crap, it's people like you who have held this country back. You and your birds have the same gene pool.

[Obvious Adam]

I'm betting if Floorboard saw pictures of "hundreds of windmills" it was probably Texas. More South than West. But still part of the American expansion of the 19th Century, still part of the Cowboy culture that built the West and Southwest. Harnessing nature to live their lives. "Windmills" have been used on farms and ranches for hundreds of years here. Wind Turbines are just larger scale windmills. The studies are still being conducted on Wind Farm effects to bird populations and so far the data does not support any increases in bird deaths. We do need to carefully place Wind Farms to make sure that fly ways and migration paths are not altered. But not a single point of your comment can be backed by any scientific data.
Facts based on opinons mean nothing. Opinions must be based on facts.

[pochovilla]

A hot air wind farm is needed on Capital Hill when Congress is in session. Who knows, it could possibly generate enough power for half of DC.

[Road Runner]

Floorboard, It's no longer true that wind farms kill birds. The older, smaller, faster-spinning ones did, but the newer, bigger, slower-spinning ones don't. Plus, the newer, bigger ones are spaced farther apart. One farm in CA monitored bird kills and found very few bird kills. The few turbines that had higher kill rates were removed.

Also, since when is west Texas beautiful?! Have you ever been to some of those west Texas towns that smell like oil? I'd rather see a landscape full of clean white wind turbines, than nasty oil rigs.

Most of the people living around windmills eventually like them because of the huge amount of money they bring to often economically depressed areas. It's better to live with windmills, than be forced to move to the city to find a job. Some west Texas towns have a whole new sense of prosperity and optimism since wind farms were built near them. Nothing like a new school building to raise community spirits

[azrael]

Dear floorboard. Probably the windmills ruins the landscape and the enviroment, but a coal or gas or oil plant is much more worse and dangerous. Second. In the long term and in the medium term it is good for Us and western Coutries to built windmills. We will get the grid parity in a couple of years. Or sooner if oil price grows further. Third. Perhaps it is better to depend from Mr Ahmadinejad ? Fourth. Who said that these windmills kill the bird ? this is a legend of course. Al the windmills in the world put toghether have killed less birds than a single oil power plant.
Sorry. You are probably a kind boy. But stop dreaming !
Eric

[CaptBob]

We've done nothing but debate this since the brilliant Carter "price controls" 35 years ago which dried up gas at any price.
What we need now--in the present CRISIS--is the fastest solution, the gains in the economy will make up the difference and give us "Breathing" room. And that's wind!! There's nothing else that can go on line in a month and displace a petro fired generator adding to supply and reducing costs.
But go ahead and debate it a few more years. Are the only thinking people on the planet the Scandinavians??

[Road Runner]

Floorboard, Another thing. You complain about the beautiful West scenery being ruined by windmills. What about beautiful seashores being ruined by high rise condos? I hate that much more than uninhabited lands in the West being populated by windmills. Face it – there are always trade-offs when it comes to the environment and people.

[ART005]

The turbine manufacturers are at full production. There is about a 4 year lead time on turbines according to a GE engineer I talked with. The only way to increase turbine installation is to increase production capacity. This is the complaint of the on/off tax environment. At this point the turbine industry has to commit to production expansion and the unstable tax program makes them hesitate.

I have a fast 1 kW, 9'-2" rotor, 17' tower turbine in a rural setting of small mountains, lakes, streams, eagles just the kind of beautiful place that urban legend says is too beautiful for turbines. My neighbors complain when I shut it down for service. It's part of the friendly gab at the local tavern. I give tours to passer byes. It has killed no birds in 4 years. My large windows have killed 3. So the research for Floorboard is prohibit windows, install turbines!!

[nakedjaybird]

I wonder if we would be better served if comparisons of the various energy technologies were shown as:

1) the installed capital cost per unit energy peak,

2) the production energy cost per unit of energy peak,

3) the production energy cost per unt of energy produced with

4) the as-produced appropriate capacity factor,

5) time from start of construction to producton, and

6) the development of a complexity factor (considering associated activities etc., for exploration, mining, drilling, processing, transportation, remediation, waste, pollution, regulations, supporting industry complexities, legal, siting and enviornmental, etc.); and then,

7) a life-cycle cost/year on the initial fixed cost investment, and

8) a life-cycle cost/year on the variable cost including all operating, maintenance, and replacement costs.

In other words some financial considerations, and then some non-financial considerations.

All good CEO's and Directors know that leadership performance normally has both types of financial and non-financial objectives to measure their performance. And some short term and long term measures.

The articles cost comparisons shown do not necessarily consider all these factors, especially for several of the technologies shown such as solar and wind where the energy source is readily available, free and forever, with low maintenance and minimal complexities. Of course, hydro, oil, wood, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, etc., were absent.

So, let's smarten up our comparisons with some financial fixed costs and variable costs differentiation; life-cycle costs; and some non-financial considerations. Most reasonable businesses do that for evaluation purposes.

[nakedjaybird]

Clarification: fixed and variable life cycle costs should be cost/watt/year (peak power life cost) and cost/watt-hr/year (produced energy life cost), not just cost/year (and yes, I understand how estimated life can be "adjusted"; so disclose it).

[Road Runner]

nakedjaybird, You talk about the need for numbers, but there are no numbers in your post. Seems like you are part of the problem you are complaining about. How about you stop complaining, and stop expecting others to do the leg work for you, and fill in some of those numbers for us.

[nakedjaybird]

Road Runner - I already PAY the Congressional Research Service and the Department of Energy and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to play gymnastics with the numbers. That's enough.

Just asking to be better served. Both you and me.

Same request stands regarding all the money and breaks the Government gives to dying and forever more expensive energy sources (oil, gas and coal) instead of properly betting and funding our future a better way (solar, wind, etc.) to achieve the equivalent work function with much less waste, less complexity and fewer consequeces, AND NOT BEING DEPENDENT upon the rest of the world.

[Learning Curve]

I feel lucky! Here on the north Front Range of Colorado, Vestas has set up its US operations. There is an ever developing "Clean Energy Cluster" in Fort Collins and in association with Colorado State University. We have set good goals in Colorado for renewable energy, have a wealth of creative entrepreneurs in our Fort Collins Technology Incubator and in other "clean" enterprises; and best of all, we have citizens who are supportive of our renewable energy initiatives.
Thanks for the discussion.

[Road Runner]

Learning Curve, You touched on something important about wind power. The vast area of North America just east of the Rockies is ideal for wind generation. The Rockies block the wind making the plains windy. The plains from Canada to Texas are very good for wind generation. Notice how Vestas located in Colorado about half way down the plains.

The biggest obstacle to wind generation in the plains is transmission lines. This is an area that needs big government help because it is very expensive and time consuming to build transmission lines.

The plains are not too far away from cities to be useful. For long transmission distances, high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission can be used. It’s an established technology. It has a range from 300 to over 1000 miles with minimal power loss. It takes less space than AC transmission and can be put along highways. So, power generated in the plains can be sent to Midwest and Western cities. But again, the government needs to promote this.

[nakedjaybird]

Hey, roadrunner, if you think HVAC transmission has raised questions about magnetic field effects, you may be very surprised to learn about the magnetic fields DC produces.