Talk:Wind power

I organized the Controversy section into sub-sub headings for what were previously bullets and bullets for what were previously indentations. This makes it a lot easier to see the general area of the claims of opponents/proponents and the different specific claims in those areas. I think we might want to cut down on this section just a tad. This seems to be one of the worst cases of Wikipedia becoming more of a polemic instead of an encyclopedia, as we have every possible argument and counter argument and counter-counter argument. However, we seem to be missing quite a bit of information on the biggest argument of proponents of wind power-- the fact that wind power is renewable (benefit over fossil fuels which are bound to run out) and the fact that it is nonpolluting (another benefit over fossil fuels). Bonus Onus 23:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I moved in the discussion of energy extraction from the wind turbine article since I thought it made this article flow a lot better. It still needs a section on economics. One limitation to wind use on an interconnected network is the stability of the system; I understand a rule of thumb is that wind capacity should not exceed one-third of the network generation.--Wtshymanski 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took this out of the controversy section. How is it relevant?

• Detractors often fail to mention that Nuclear power is deeply subsidizes and could not compete without the 3 Billion dollar Insurance subsidy provided by the Price-anderson act. Wind power by contrast does not require a liability waiver to be economic.

70.66.48.96 02:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Classes of wind resources

Can someone write up what wind developers meann by "Class 6", etc. wind areas? This would be useful. --Wtshymanski 15:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Done! weeks ago, too. Thanks to User:Iain.mcclatchie. --Wtshymanski 17:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

World windpower map

I found this map interesting [1]. Maybe someone who understands German can decide if it is copyrighted? More graphs here [2]. Ultramarine 18:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

OK, my POV meter just broke, the arcticle barely covers the disadvantages of wind power, while the 'supporter' section is full of nonsense like:

* Wind turbines are beautiful, graceful machines that symbolise humans in harmony with the natural world. As a form of sculpture, wind turbines are a dynamic (moving) art form. Urban wind turbines like the 750 kW Lagerwey in Toronto can actually be popular gathering places.

* Wind turbines make the process of producing electricity visible.

--Berkut 20:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the lyrical stuff is in the section clearly marked "arguments of supporters". What disadvantages of wind power are you thinking of, that are not described in the article? I, myself, took out something that objected to the power used by the wind-farm itself, as being ill-founded. Station service for a wind farm is lower than any other power plant of comparable rating; even hydro plants need more station service power than a wind farm. Would you list some objections, so we've got a basis to expand the article? --Wtshymanski 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ill probably tweek the artcile a little, and if everyone agrees, I'll remove the POV notice --Berkut 02:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yet its missing the main argument in favor of wind power: that its clean and renewable. Yeah, please remove all that graceful crap. Bonus Onus 02:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please hurry up and point out this bias? If there is a specific point you want to add to the list of arguments, please do. But don't just slap a Template on a page when you feel it isn't up to par. Edit a page, when you feel it isn't up to par.

And since the aesthetics srgument is made by supporters, it is just as valid as the argument about visual pollution, and never POV. -- Ec5618 06:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article itself needs a major rewrite with much more prose. There's no need for "Supporters" and "Opponents". It should have have a format of something like "Opponents argue that the turbines can be an eyesore, while supporters contend that all power sources, such as thermal and nuclear power plants and dams can be visually unappealing." and so on. I'll just make a couple of tweaks and remove the POV notice, my English skills are not up to the task of major rewrite. --Berkut 07:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wind turbines are beautiful, graceful machines that symbolise humans in harmony with the natural world. Well - I think they look great. It's the most eye-catching large scale human intrusion into the natural world I can imagine. I prefer to see a hillside littered with these things, because it's a direct statement that that very same hillside HASN'T been scooped out and fed rock by rock into a coal power plant. As a form of sculpture, wind turbines are a dynamic (moving) art form. Urban wind turbines like the 750 kW Lagerwey in Toronto can actually be popular gathering places. Well? IS it a popular gathering place? If it IS, then you 'argument' amounts to little more than incredulity... which is scarcely a non-fallacious argument.

Alternative technology

The "power fence"

Not sure which article to put this in, but a guy named Alvin Marks got a patent in 1980 for a wind power generation device with no moving parts. It is U.S. patent 4,206,396: Charged aerosol generator with uni-electrode source I don't know if one was ever built or if it even works, but I uploaded a picture and other people can help research it now. - Omegatron 02:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This would be the vaneless ion wind generator, right? Put it there. Iain McClatchie 03:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Where? - Omegatron 14:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The article on vaneless ion wind generator. Done it. -- Ec5618 10:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

:-) - Omegatron 18:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Energy Audit of wind turbines.

Can anyone cite definitive sources that demonstrate that the energy balace sheet for wind turbines is positive? I understand that if the energy cost of manufacture, deployment, and site clearance is properly accounted for, it amounts to 3 0r 4 times the total energy produced by a typical turbine in its 20 year desigh life. If this is so, then it is outageous that they are being promoted as 'green' energy. Even if on balance, they break even in energy terms, then there can be no justification for the despoilment of wild places that they inflict. There must be a clear and significant energy advantage before they can be justified, otherwise we are all being conned, and the environment is being harmed. (SJ from Wales)

No definitive sources exist, nor can exist, because this figure is different for different locations. And, though this comment might not have much sway, any wind turbine placement is a step in the right direction, as experience is gleaned. -- Ec5618 10:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If the technology cannot produce more energy than it takes to create the device, how does experience help? This sounds like the 'First National Change' bank from Saturday Night Live, where all they do is give you change, and claim to make money through 'volume'. More experience for a technology that doesn't create more power than it takes is still on the wrong side of the energy curve. If, however, the energy costs of construction can be significantly reduced, that should be the message here, not the ethereal 'get more experience' argument. Keeping the article on-track with that message will serve the effort of getting accurate information out there better. - Chairboy 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note also that such devices (windmills) are among a handfull which even have the potential for a net positive energy balance sheet. Cars do not, Tractors, toys, homes, industry, oil wells, NG power stations. None produce energy, some of them may collect energy stores which have already been produced or convert them into other forms of energy. PV, Wind, and Hydro (Plants and Photo-Plankton) are among a short list of technologies which are capable of capturing short term forms of solar energy for such that we can then use or abuse them producing all these other net negative products. --D0li0 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Devils advocate mode, oil and NG are actually other forms of solar energy, just with a slightly longer cycle time. This isn't an attempt to rationalize oil consumption, just a heads up so you are not caught unawares by others in debate. The other items you listed are not considered energy production methods, so the argument is moot. Finally, windmills do not produce energy any more then oil wells. They merely collect solar energy in the form of wind. Nuclear Fusion produces energy, and is noticably missing from your list. - Chairboy 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, It's all solar, even nuclear is the producto of solar processes which created such heavy atoms. The important consideration is the time frame and effeciency of these various forms. PV is the most direct, 13% eff PV collects 13% of the potential, directly. Wind requires the light be converted into heat, thermals, jet streams, etc and then be captured, I would say that it too is highly effecient 10%-30% or so (it doesn't really matter, so long as there is enough potential, and there is [3] ). Hydro is similarly rather direct and effecient, evaporation, condensation... All of these forms range from instant solar energy to days or perhaps weeks old energy. To contrast Coal is the newest of FF forms, all of which rely on photosynthesis which is 0.3% to 1.0% up to 3% to 11% for sugar cane. Oil and NG represent a staggering cumulation of plant matter which starts off with substantial losses [4]. Anyway, I've considered a wide range of ideas and Wind is one of the best I've seen, there is 5 times current consumption worth of economical wind resources, this from our current level of technology 80M towers, and not considering off-shore resources. -Wtshymanski, Kudos on the energy payback figures of 17 to 40 times, Which I suppose is dependent on the maturity, power, reliability, etc of the windmills. As tech advances so to should these figures.--D0li0 08:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Money represents at *least* the value of the stored energy implicit in the structure. Any windmill that makes money must then have a net positive energy balance. I can probably find numbers but let's say a 2 MW turbine lasts 20 years and has a .33 load factor - so in its economic life it will make about 115,000 megawatthours. The total weight of materials used to make the turbine is less than 1000 tons, say 1MWH/ton (steel making takes around 700 kWH, for example, and concrete is a bit less - high-tech composite blades I haven't seen numbers for, but they don't weigh much compared to the tower and foundation), so 1000 megawatthours to build the unit in the first place. The "energy payback" is then on the order of a few months of the turbine's design life.

This "payback" arguement I have seen in other energy contexts, but I've yet to see any commerical energy scheme which did *not* have a short payback time and which repaid its initial energy consumption scores or hundreds of times over in its life. People aren't stupid, you know...things don't get built unless they pay back, or else the utility quickly goes broke. --Wtshymanski 17:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not three minuts after checking with Google, I found

[[5]] which addresses this question. You'll all be relieved to know that the example wind installations produced between 17 and 39 times as much energy as it took to build and run them. ( Hydro does better, of course, but I'm biassed.) --Wtshymanski 17:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Large Scale

There are now too many anecdotes in the Utilization/Large Scale section. Is Germany producing 25% or 40% of the world's windpower? This should all be ripped out and replaced by a table showing current windpower production by country, sorted by megawatt-hours per year, and the portion of that country's power produced thereby.

This would be a good place to say something about any infrastructure changes, if any, either Germany or Denmark has had to make to cope with generation variability.

Iain McClatchie 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposition POV's: Ecological disaster / global warming.

Ok, I'm not a geoscientist by any means, but just reading this article made me ponder .. what causes wind? The heating and cooling of the atmosphere by the sun. What happens if you had a global scale wind energy production system? Every kilowat of energy created by the wind would be a kilowat of energy sapped from the movement of the atmosphere. Without the free movement of the gasses in the atmosphere to cycle to cool and heat again, wouldn't we be superheating some areas and freezing other areas? I mean, it'd only be by a minute degree, but even the change of one or two degrees celcius could cause some rather drastic problems, no?

Why isn't this addressed in the article? If a moron like me can make that connection and ponder it, surely some of you intelligent gentlemen could address the issue from a much more scientific standpoint?  :)

211.30.72.208 21:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Per Earth's_energy_budget the solar radiation input number you're looking for is 174,000 TW (Terawatts), 70% of which is absorbed, 64% by the atmosphere, so about 111,360 TW is tied up in the atmosphere at any given moment. For comparison, our Fossil Fuel consumption is about 13TW, all of which is human added waste heat. We don't require that much electric energy, total global grid consumption is about 1.5 TW (mostly from coal and ng which are included in the FF figure). So replacing FF derived grid power with renew/systain-ables (wind, etc), and the remaining ineffecient transportation (~20% usefull work done) use of FF with more effecient transportation methods (EV and BEV) would reduce that energy requirement substantially. This transportation transition may require the doubeling of grid capacity to 3 TW (my rough estimate). So it might prove to help! Eliminating 13 TW of excess heat and instead obsorbing 3 TW of said excess energy (though I doubt it would work out so elegantly). Anyway, that 3 TW represents some 1/37120th or 0.00269% of the energy in the atmosphere. Of course I could be offbase and am no expert myself. --D0li0 22:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt these back of the envelope figures. I think there are more pressing concerns, were we to hypothetically replace all ng and ff electricity with windfarms, such as the amount of space required and the investment in steel and manufacturing required... it's interesting that people rarely include the energy-cost of BUILDING these gigantic steel monstrosities... steel, concrete, welding, surface treatment, moving parts, machinery etc... But, as far as reducing the amount of wind energy goes? - pfffft - nothing. A drop in the ocean.

pfffft - what? Option 1. Convert (FF) ancient Solar energy (in and of itself an ineffecient Solar storage mechanism) into work(25%) and mostly heat(75%), dump it all (100%) back into the atmosphere. Option 2. Use near instantanious Solar energy in the form of wind (And others...) to supply our energy requirements at exponentially higher effeciencys (No Solar->Carbon losses, no Carbon->Heat-Energy losses)? I like Option 2, and I too feel they are beautiful machines, works of art, a true display of human kinds inteligence and power to cleanly and effeciently harness but a fraction of the imense power of the Sun and Earth to satisfy all our energy requiremtns for some time into the future (not forever (Save the FF for then, perhaps)). As far as implamenting it, how much steel is required for an air craft carrier, or oil supertanker? So, do we invest in power consuming, death spreading, war machines and carbon-sink stealing and CO2 liberating super corperations? Or do we invest in sustainable energy collecting and freedom spreading technologies like windmills? Maybe we use new age carbonfiber materials rather than steel, perhaps a wind turbin manufacturing facility (and the community it supports) could be powered with wind energy? Take a look at economics/energy supply charts, abundant energy = strong economy = high standard of living. So plentifull wind power is a (Human kind) liberating technology (rather than CO2 liberating, climate changing), just what those few who currently hold all the power do not want anyone of us to have as individules or communities. This is mostly a political problem, IMHO. Given all the facts (POV as they may be) on both sides, and shown the alternatives (or current methods as they were) and asked to make choices for the next 100, 1000, and 10,000 and more years, what would the choice be? Option 1 or Option 2? --D0li0 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Detailed errors

Source on the part about the Supreme Court not ruling out the disaster potential of nuclear power?

The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. A well-sited wind generator will have a capacity factor of as much as 35%. When comparing the size of wind turbine plants to fueled power plants, it is important to note that 1000 kW of wind-turbine potential power would be expected to produce as much energy in a year as approximately 350 kW of fuel-fired generation

That can't be right. Conventional plants need downtime, due to abrupt failures or for scheduled maintenance. The Nuclear Energy Institute suggest 70% c.f. for coal, 90% for nuclear (though I suspect others would claim that to be optimistic) (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262); we are implicitly assuming conventional plant has 100% capacity factor!

Another charge is that output figures, such as "Denmark produces over 20% of its electricity from wind," do not account for electricity that is simply absorbed by the international grid because it is produced when demand is already being met by other sources that can't be turned off, such as base load and combined heat and power plants.

What is the point of this criticism? Energy "absorbed by the international grid" is still used and useful.

-- ti