About Wind Energy / Why Wind Energy

Cost of Wind Power

 

Cost of Wind — Kicks Coal’s Butt, Better than Natural Gas (& Could Power Your EV for $0.70/gallon)

 

Photo via clarkmaxwell

What’s the cost of wind power? Well, of course, it depends on where you are and who you ask. But I’m going to do my best here to share some reliable information and put it in a useful context for you. Overall, wind costs have dropped significantly in recent years, and while wind is at least cost-competitive with coal and natural gas these days, looking at its true costs indicates it is much cheaper.

How to Measure Cost

There are a few different ways you can measure electricity cost. For example:

  1. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) — the utility way (the average cost over the lifespan of the project, initial investments plus operation and maintenance costs, not including externalities).
  2. Wholesale price — hard to get complete numbers on this; many sources will not divulge them.
  3. “All In” — taking into account externalities — health/environmental costs (yes, these are real costs that we pay that, of course, vary according to the energy source).

The figures you normally see and which are provided in most cases below are according to #1, LCOE, which artificially makes the cost of coal and gas cheaper than it should be. But don’t worry, I get into #3 a bit as well.

Now, a lot of people may bring in the issue of subsidies here. Taking subsidies into account, wind would fair even better, as total historical subsidies and current subsidies heavily favor fossil fuels. For more on this matter, check out this video of AWEA CEO Denise Bode taking on FOX News.

Wind versus Coal — Costs

Without even taking the above externalities into account, wind is already beating coal (despite what most think).

cost of wind versus cost of coal

Wind has gotten cheaper and cheaper while coal is getting more expensive (and that trend isn’t expected to change) — but people seem stuck in the past with regards to their cost perceptions (no surprise if they haven’t seen updated information).

Wind Costs Compared to Coal & Natural Gas

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced at the beginning of the year that wind power was cost-competitive with natural gas in the United States.

“Wind’s costs have dropped over the past two years, with power purchase agreements being signed in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.” Elizabeth Salerno, AWEA Director of Industry Data & Analysis, said. “With uncertainty around natural gas and power prices as the economy recovers, wind’s long-term price stability is even more valued. We expect that utilities will move to lock in more wind contracts, given the cost-competitive nature of wind in today’s market.”

More recently, AWEA told investors at a wind finance workshop the same thing as well as the fact that wind is now beating coal in this category and a little more on why and what’s expected in the near future (generally).

AWEA figures show that the average wind PPAs are now being priced at about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, the same price for energy procurements from a combined cycle natural gas plant. The group says wind is actually about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity, and more projects were financed through debt arrangements than tax equity structures last year, a possible sign that wind deals are winning more mainstream acceptance from Wall Street’s banks….

[AWEA chief economist Elizabeth] Salerno credits the breakthrough in cost to improved turbine design and performance, higher towers and longer blades, which have boosted the reliability and performance of wind power generation. Equipment makers can also deliver products in the same year that they are ordered instead of waiting up to three years as was the case in previous cycles, she said, calling it a sign of a mature supply chain.

The group estimates that 5,600 MW of new installed capacity is under construction in the United States, more than double the number at this point in 2010. Thirty-five percent of all new power generation built in the United States since 2005 has come from wind, more than new gas and coal plants combined, as power providers are increasingly enticed to wind as a convenient hedge against unpredictable commodity price moves, AWEA said.

While the above statements concern wind power in the U.S. (the lowest-priced wind power market), the trend is the same worldwide.

Here’s more on the wind-natural gas situation from Chris Varrone from a September wind energy webinar:

1. While wind power hit grid parity in recent years, a sharp drop in the cost of natural gas took that away.

Note that the figure on the right should be $25-40/MWh (not kWh), and that while wind was cheaper than natural gas for several years but got undercut by rapid drops in the cost of natural gas a couple years ago, the price of wind has gone down again and it is at or below grid parity in many markets in 2011.

2. The price of natural gas is expected to rise pretty sharply again in the near future. (see graph underneath point #3)

And, combining that with continued improvements in wind turbine technology, wind power should be cheaper than natural gas again before too long, perhaps getting down to 3.5-4 cents/kWh.

3. However, Chris mentioned that we should realize that the most promising and growing markets are in the developing the world. There, wind is not competing with the low cost of natural gas in the US, but is competing with coal, nuclear, and diesel (which are easier to compete with). But even in the US, the cost of natural gas is projected to be easier and easier to compete with (see the projected increases in price below).

Also, (as a number of people in this field do) Chris advises us that natural gas can sometimes be a friend of wind rather than a foe, especially in the US. Natural gas, due to its quick-ramping capabilities, can help us transition to wind, solar, geothermal, a smarter grid, and cheaper energy storage options. Something to consider. (I’ve been considering it for quite awhile, from a policy point of view, and am still on the line, but lean towards agreeing with Chris on the matter.)

Now, another factor in cost is subsidies. It is clear that clean energy as a whole (and wind energy as one piece of that) aren’t getting nearly the subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear have gotten (and still get). If it were an even playing field, I think it’s fair to say that wind would be creaming these other options.

historical energy subsidies nuclear oil renewable energy

energy subsidies

Wind Power Costs, Prices Dropping Worldwide

“Prices have dipped below €1m per MW for the first time since 2005, according to the latest edition of Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Wind Turbine Price Index,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance wrote in February, 2011. For us Americans, that translates to about $1.48 million per MW.

The cost of electricity generated from wind is now at record lows: several projects in high resource areas (US, Brazil, Sweden, Mexico) display a levelised cost of energy – excluding the impact of subsidies but after including the cost of capital and maintenance – below EUR 50/MWh ($68/MWh). This compares to current estimated average costs of $67 per MWh for coal-fired power and $56 per MWh for gas-fired power.” (In $/kWh, the figures would thus be less than $0.068/kWh for wind, $0.067/kWh for coal, and $0.056/kWh for gas-fired power.)

Important Note: While LCOE is widely used to compare various sources of energy, even not including the fact that it doesn’t account for health or environmental costs, it has its weaknesses. For example, LCOE for wind projects are often based on a 20-year lifetimes for wind turbines.

The oldest installed commercial wind turbines in the world, at Altamont Pass in California, were just replaced (or are in the process of being replaced) after 30 years of operation and the reason for it is a legal suit regarding endangered bird deaths — NextEra Energy Resources LLC, the company that owns the project, is replacing them with much more efficient turbines in order to reduce the number of turbines significantly.

The Department of Energy, which seems to use this 30-year assumption, found the price of electricity from new wind farm plants ranged from 4 to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009, which is competitive with other new power plants and essentially the same as AWEA reported above. However, if a 30- or 40-year lifespan were used for the projects, the costs would be much lower, as the huge majority of a wind project’s costs are from the initial investment (wind, the ‘fuel’, is free and there are minimal operating and maintenance costs).

Wind is MUCH Cheaper than Coal & Natural Gas (if You Know How to Add)

Now, as I hinted at the top, if you take the full health costs and environmental costs of various energy sources into account, wind comes out looking even better. A recent study out of Harvard found that if one adds in the hidden costs of coal then its actual price in the U.S. is more like 9-27 cents higher per kilowatt hour. The authors write:

Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public.

This makes the true, “all-in” cost of coal electricity somewhere between 17 cents and 35 cents per kWh. You pay 8 cents or so per kWh on your electricity bill and then quite a bit more than that in healthcare costs, health insurance premiums, and with your tax dollars. Wind? It’s sticking to its original 4 to 9 cents per kWh.

As far as natural gas, I’m not aware of anyone doing a full cost accounting of it, or even counting in the health costs. It may not be as bad as coal when it comes to global warming emissions (though, some argue that), but it definitely emits more than wind. Additionally, water quality problems are a huge issue with natural gas, and since we are just discovering this (or it is just coming out into the open and the mainstream), I’m sure quantifying those costs is a huge task. However, again, you can be sure that there are significant costs and that there’s not the same issue with wind power.

Cost of Powering Our Cars with Wind

This is an interesting side note I thought I’d add. According to AWEA, based on the current cost of wind expressed in above sections, powering your electric vehicle with wind power would be several times cheaper than fueling up with gas now. “By powering our electric cars using wind, Americans can pay the equivalent of 70 cents a gallon at the pump,” AWEA stated. Interesting.

I don’t know how AWEA came to that conclusion — haven’t seen the calculations. If you have more info on this or want to try your hand at doing your own calculations, feel free to and shoot us your findings!

Google: Wind is Just a Good Investment, Cheap

While Google is known for its enthusiasm for clean, renewable energy now, something not often mentioned is that it is not only a clean energy leader because of its altruistic tendencies, but also because it just makes good financial sense. Catch this recent admission from one of Google’s higher-ups:

One of the main incentives for Google is financial returns. Rick Needham, Google’s green business operations manager, told me last year the North Dakota wind farms were an attractive deal for Google on the basis of the returns alone.

Wind power purchase agreements (wind is the cheapest utility-scale clean power out there) can set wind power rates around six cents a kilowatt hour for a 20-year contract, depending on location. It can sometimes cost even less with federal subsidies. As Lux Research analyst Ted Sullivan told me in an interview last year, “That’s pretty cheap.”

Wind Power is Making Electricity Cheaper (Exxon: Wind to be Cheapest Source of Electricity)

 

Photo via aja

Following up on the above, here’s a little discussion on some more intricate matters related to wind power. (And don’t worry, for those concerned about the “intermittent nature of wind,” there’s more on that below.)

Wind Power is Making Electricity Cheaper in Texas & Europe

Is the rapid growth of wind power in Texas actually making electricity cheaper?

Yes, says Bernstein Research in a recent report, “Will Wind Power Blow Texas Generators Away?,” a follow-up to their own prior effort. The idea is that wind power is steadily replacing more expensive forms of power generation, essentially natural gas

Yes, that’s actually from an article in the Wall Street Journal.

There’s more to it than the fact that wind power is cheap, but we’ll get to that in a moment. First, let’s note that the same thing is happening in Europe.

‘Wind Energy and Electricity Prices’, a comprehensive assessment of studies of the impact of wind energy on electricity prices, was carried out by the independent consultancy Pöyry AS on behalf of EWEA. It brings together, for the first time, the findings of case studies in Germany, Denmark and Belgium.

The report finds that in the studies reviewed by Pöyry, electricity prices were reduced by between 3 and 23 €/MWh depending on the amount of wind power. It concludes that the studies “essentially draw similar conclusions” and that “an increased penetration of wind power reduces wholesale spot prices.”

“It has already been well-established that wind reduces CO₂ emissions,” said Christian Kjaer, EWEA’s Chief Executive. “But now we have stronger evidence than ever before that wind power also reduces electricity prices for consumers. The message is clear – if you want affordable CO₂-free electricity, increase the amount of wind power in your electricity mix.”

How Does Wind Power Drive Down Electricity Costs?

Aside from the fact that wind power is cheap, there is another important factor at play here – merit order pricing.

Wind (and solar) have no fuel costs and low operating and maintenance costs (O&M). That means that once the systems are up and connected to the grid, they can afford to sell their power for very little money. In the case of wind, the O&M cost is about $0.01/kWh.

Check out this graph from the International Energy Agency (via Jerome de Paris/The Oil Drum):

When the call goes out for electricity, wind can sell it’s power for about a penny and not loose money (at that moment). And, with a $0.018 feed in tariff (FIT), wind can actually give its energy away and still make money! That means that wind is always going to be able to underbid any fuel-burning producer.

What actually happens is that a call goes out for X units of electricity. The least expensive providers get picked up first — that would be wind, then hydro might be next, followed by nuclear and coal. If wind, hydro and nuclear can provide all X units, coal gets left out. And same could go for nuclear if wind and hydro can cover it all.

Alternatively, coal and nuclear, which can’t be turned on and off quickly, might have to sell at a loss for that time block in order to be up and running when they can sell for a profit. I think this is what could eventually push coal, at the least, off the grid (and turn the energy tables even further).

What this effectively does, as well, is it lowers the price of electricity. This is a key reason why Texas, Europe, and other places with a lot of wind power are seeing reductions in the price of electricity (and people’s electricity bills).

Read much more on this topic in the following articles and reports:

 

The Future

As mentioned above, wind has no fuel costs. That is an advantage today, but with peak coal coming in the not-too-distant future, this is likely to make wind increasingly cheaper than coal. (Of course, if we just cut our coal use now, we wouldn’t even have to run into peak coal, but it seems that we aren’t so foresighted.)

Natural gas has become much cheaper of late due to hydraulic fracturing (aka ‘fracking’ or ‘fracking horrible idea’), but there are numerous cases showing that this seriously threatens water supplies and, increasingly, projects are being put on pause as a result. Where this goes no one knows — some predict natural gas will continue to stay cheap and will boom (more than it already has), others postulate that new regulations and environmental costs will reverse the trend. Of course, wind will remain free.

As Jerome de Paris notes, there are numerous reasons to shift more to wind power and numerous reasons why it would help create a more secure, brighter future:

the reality is that you get cheaper electricity with wind – and oh by the way, wind requires no imports of fast-depleting fuels from unstable countries, spews no carbon and provides lots more domestic jobs. And it’s a perfect investment for our pension needs – safe, low risk, stable, decent long term returns…

It is just a policy decision, one very strongly opposed by powerful fossil fuel companies and their politicians, including, essentially, the entire Republican leadership/Congressmen at the moment .

Will wind be one of the top electricity sources of the future? I hope so. Fossil fuel Congresspeople would have to do a lot to stop it now.

ExxonMobil: Wind Cheapest Form of Electricity Generation

Now, to close out, from ExxonMobil’s yearly review of energy statistics and trends, Energy Outlook: A view to 2030, here’s an interesting chart (via European Tribune):

click to enlarge

This 2025 prediction shows wind power being much cheaper than any other electricity source if a price is put on carbon (something that should obviously happen sooner rather than later, but which is being stalled in the U.S. by fossil-fuel-funded politicians — again, mostly the GOP — in Congress).

Even if a price were not put on carbon, though, wind remains one of the most economical choices. And this conclusion comes to us from an ExxonMobil report!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

  • Design1950

    Help! I need to find personal wind turbines for houses in one of the windiest places on Earth called Windy Cove, 5 minutes from downtown Palm Springs….Suggestions?

  • Pingback: Manitoba Announces Renewable Energy Jobs Fund - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Vestas Hits 50 GW Milestone (Over 46,000 Wind Turbines Installed Worldwide) - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Turbine Cowboys is “Cliffhanger” of Reality TV Entertainment - CleanTechnica

  • Ivan S. Bell

    While driving through Indiana there are always a lot of tower blades not turning even on windy days….why? Is any of the generated electricity stored for later use? If so please explain. Are they turned off much like the fossel plants alter output when more or less electricity is needed?

    • L33t4im

      Wind turbines have specific thresholds to which they operate at particular heights. This means that although it may be ‘windy’ out, the wind speed has not reached the equivalent threshold to turn the blades, and therefore no energy is being harnessed. In other examples, utilities shutdown and lock the wind turbines from turning during extreme winds to avoid inadvertent damage to the wind turbines. Also, wind speed is variable depending on the height above the Earth’s surface (generally faster winds higher up). This is why you see huge wind turbines that are massively tall with huge blades in order to better harness the wind potential. Conversely, smaller, shorter wind turbines operate at slower speeds closer to the ground to maximize harnessing the energy from the wind at those heights. For more information, check out the NREL website or take a look at the first slide from a NREL report (link below).

      http://wind.nrel.gov/public/library/small/pdfs/slideshow/lg_vs_small.pdf

    • Bob_Wallace

      There’s not a lot of storage available yet. It could be that there’s more potential supply than demand and some turbines are parked/curtailed. That certainly happens in the spring in places that have a lot of hydro on line. Lots of available water and low spring demand.

      Or there could be a transmission problem. It doesn’t always make sense to build transmission lines capable of carrying 100% of a wind farm’s maximum production if that high output level is seldom reached. Transmission lines might be sized to carry 70% or 80% of maximum production which could mean that 20% to 30% of the turbines are curtailed.

      You can also see wind turbines shut down because they are sited in a bird migratory route and it’s “that time of year”.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      in addition to the above great answers, some older turbines are retired but left sanding. not sure if that’s the case in your situation or the above potential answers.

  • Pingback: Huge Scotland Wind Farm Given Green Light (on Shetland Islands) | Planetsave

  • Pingback: 5 US States Now Top 10% Electricity from Wind Power | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Trash to Treasure — Waste-to-Energy a Growing Industry - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Major League Baseball Leads Off 2012 With Clean Tech Investments

  • Pingback: Cape Wind Would Reduce Price of Electricity by $7.2 Billion, Study Finds - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Great Lakes states sign MOU to develop more offshore wind power

  • Pingback: Live Wind Energy Map Looks Like Living Van Gogh Painting (One of the Coolest Maps Ever) - CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: 6 Things You Really Need to Know about Renewable Energy

  • James Van Damme

    The tone of the article makes me wonder if it was written by a Russian gas company.

  • Bob_Wallace

    Gosh, that’s dumb.

    Sure, it might be cheaper to meet near term CO2 goals by investing in gas plants.

    But those are only short term goals, not where the UK needs to get in the long term. Putting their money in wind now means that they will have generation that helps them get to a zero CO2 grid.

    Go the route you like and at some point the UK will have to spend those dollars a second time and park their CO2 emitting gas plants.

  • Scott Crook

    Questions on wind research: 1) currently we see towers with a single generator powered by a single wind turbine. After watching the video of an out of control windmill spinning itself to pieces I wondered, “Is there enough potential energy to support an array of generators on a single turbine tower? Arrays with transmission variability to engage the other generators ONLY when there is sufficient force available. 2) Have there been experiments in funneling to concentrate the force? Kinda like a passive ramjet.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Multiple turbines on the same tower. I believe that turbulence would be a problem. Last I read turbines are being located further apart as we learn more about how they interact with the wind.

      Wind funnels, yes. At least one company is working on a design which uses a cowl to concentrate more wind on the blades. I haven’t heard how that’s working out. They made lots of optimistic predictions and have gone fairly quite as far as I know.

      I suspect that design would be best for an area with ‘small wind’ and an area that never gets strong storms. You can furl the blades on a turbine if the wind is extreme, turn their leading edges directly into the wind. It would be hard to reduce the exposed surface area of the cowl.

    • L33t4im

      Your question in 1) is basic. Yes, there IS enough potential wind energy to support arrays, but in doing so you would compromise the integrity of the support structure, thus requiring an immense amount of research to prove or disprove the applicability of wind turbine arrays. It is also important to note that the air behind wind turbines is extremely turbulent (imagine vortecies and other turbulent fluid flow pheonomena) and not suitable for another wind turbine to harness. Wind turbines operate most efficiently when the wind is laminar (stable, smooth, predictable). Therefore, the 1st wind turbine would work as intended, but the rest of the wind turbines in the array would have reduced efficiencies from the turbulence generated by the 1st wind turbine.

      Your question in 2) has been looked at and studied for a while now. It only makes sense that the mass flow rate of air entering a funnel has to equal the mass flow rate coming out of the funnel. Don’t confuse this with the speed of the fluid. Basically (A1)(C1) = (A2)(C2), where A1 is the wind speed before entering the funnel, A2 is the wind speed exiting the funnel. C1 is the cross-sectional area of the entrance to the funnel, whereas C2 is the cross-sectional area of the exit of the funnel. This means that the fluid flowing through the funnel will be accelerated by the restriction of the space to move through.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, great article with clarity. Perhaps you could send to Stuart Varney.

  • Pingback: Solar PV Reducing Price of Electricity in Germany | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: New Mexican Community College Offers New Opportunity With Wind Program | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Water Power: Out with the New, In with the Old | CleanTechnica

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    On land wind turbines, especially from the Texas panhandle up through the Dakotas could provide much more energy that we currently use in the entire USA. And land based wind turbines are lower cost to build and to maintain than water based turbines.

    Wind turbines can be put on farm land, using just 1% of the area, leaving the rest completely available for farming — and each turbine could produce $300,000 worth of electricity per year.

    This creates what Lester Brown has aptly dubbed PIMBY — PUT It in My Backyard. Iowa is ramping up wind power, and the rest of us should, too. Wind power scales up very well. Solar scales down very well — PV panels on the roof power A/C system when and where it is needed. This is the peak use of electricity.

    We also have wave power, and tidal power, and drilled geothermal, and biomass i.e. methane from sewage and farm waste and biodiesel from sustainable non-food crops like jatropha. Three companies are already building wave power machines; one of them is in New Jersey. Their systems can generate 10MW from an array of 60 buoys that cover just about 10 acres. I’ll bet that ocean based wind turbines can have this sort of power generator built into their base.

    Renewable energy can provide at least 10X more power than we need, and they will last as long as the earth does — about 1 Billion years. No fuel, no pollution, no spills, no explosions, no radiation, no military support, no climate change — what’s not to like?

    Neil

  • SmithJim1961

    I’d like to comment about the cost of powering an electric car. The real advantage of electric cars is the relatively high efficiency of electric motors. The efficiency of electric motors is roughly 90%. The most efficient gasoline engine today that I know of is the Toyota Prius at 38% thermal efficiency. The EPA has come up with a metric for comparing the efficiency of electric cars. It’s called MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent). A gallon of gasoline contains 33.7 kW-hr of chemical energy. (kiloWatt-hours. The “W” is capitalized because a Watt is a unit named after a person) kW-hr is the standard unit used for electrical energy. A Nissan Leaf is rated at 99 MPGe. In other words, the Leaf will travel 99 miles on 33.7 kW-hr of electrical energy. The cost of electricity in my neck of the woods is $0.08 (8 cents) per kW-hr. That comes out to $2.70 per “gallon” of electricity. The reason some people say that an electric car is equivalent to $0.70 per gallon is that gasoline cars don’t get 99 MPG. Assuming the average gasoline car gets 25 MPG that “gallon” of electricity is used by an electric car four times more efficiently than a gallon of gasoline is used in a gasoline engine car. $2.70 divided by 4 equals $0.72.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks for the comment!

      That’s a great paragraph to share with more eyes — I think I’ll post it as a guest/reader post… interested in adding anything, or changing anything?

    • Jojo

      Wow, electricity in your neck of the woods is cheap. I pay 18.5c/kW-hr.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Are you paying a flat rate or has time of use (TOU) billing come to your area?

        Once smart meters become standard and TOU billing the way things work you’re probably going to find that your late night electricity is cheap.

        And you may find yourself considering rooftop solar to help cut your peak hour costs.

    • Bob_Wallace

      The Leaf uses roughly 0.35kWh/mile. At $0.08/kWh that’s $0.028/mile.

      It’s the equivalent of a 50MPG Prius burning $1.40/gallon gas.

      It’s the equivalent of an US average 25MPG car burning $0.70/gallon gas.

      I’m seeing a lot of Leaf owners post well under 0.35kWh/mile Perhaps they are more conservative driver.

      With us spending a billion dollars a day to import oil so that we can drive using $4/gallon gas it takes no genius to understand that spending a few billion dollars to get the price of EVs down, their range up, and rapid charging stations along our highways makes incredible sense.

      If we spent a trillion dollars in order to put Americans into EVs we’d earn that money back in less than five years.

      And we wouldn’t be fighting any more oil wars.

    • Chance

      @ SmithJim1961 – Watch your back! If you make too much sense they will come after you.

  • Pingback: Cornell Getting Super Clean Energy NYC Campus

  • Pingback: UK Solar Schools Program Hits 1st Milestone 3 Months Early

  • Pingback: Float Your Wind Turbines To Save and Increase Production

  • Pingback: 5 States with Most Solar & Wind Energy Had Smallest increase in Electricity Prices 2005-2010

  • Pingback: Kenya Looking for a Geothermal Boom

  • Pingback: What if China Stimulated Domestic Demand for Solar Photovoltaic Power?

  • Pingback: Wind Energy Research to Maximise Power Generation

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WLQ3DW3BYPDT22B5PUW2A3VYRM Robert

    Solar should cost less than coal in 2025. Costs are dropping faster than wind and the fuel is free and more consistent than wind. I predict $40-50/MWh in 2025.

    • Anonymous

      Well, solar costs less than coal in many places now. And will cost less in most places in a few years (not even taking externalities into account), by most estimates. Long before 2025.

    • James Van Damme

      It won’t take much to explode in popularity among homeowners, because we buy at retail (and pay tax on it) from generating plants miles away. If I can make my own to run my air conditioner, I’m not paying the utility company or the tax man.

  • Pingback: Help Wind Energy - Get the PTC Renewed

  • Pingback: Massive Battery System Captures The Wind | CleanTechnica

  • Dan Petit

    This is the perfect site to study wind energy. Years back, when you could select all your google news topics, I had set all of the topic categories to one aspect of wind energy or another. It seemed like there was an ongoing battle with their algorithm to try to get me to view (study) something else in addition to wind energy. (LOL). When I wand to study something, I mean business in accomplishing the study of it. Thanks for your very well presented site.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks!

      I go through dozens of sites and hundreds of articles a day to try to keep on top of wind energy news, technology, policy,.. and hope to improve this resource page as time goes on. Let us know if you have any suggestions! (This page actually came about due largely to a reader’s suggestions and work.)

  • Hisham898

    I am unable to open the pages on why intermittency is not a big deal from an iPad.your blog is my favourite resource for alt energy resources!

    • Anonymous

      Really?

      It may be a temporary issue. Give it another shot (or 3)

      If it still doesn’t work, you can drop a comment in the contact form linked at the top of the page and I can email it to you.

    • Anonymous

      Jobs died.

      The power of the Force fades….

  • Pingback: Increase Wind Power with Your Mouse | Sustainablog

  • Pingback: Fat Tax — What Do You Think?

  • Pingback: Take Action: Tell Congress to Continue Critical Clean Energy Policies | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: World’s Largest Wind Power Project Moving Forward | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Wind Energy & Wind Turbine Market Booming Globally (1,750,000 MW Projected by 2030) | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Gopher State Becoming A Clean Tech Diamond In The Rough | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: 3 Ways to Go Solar | Sustainablog

  • Pingback: $12.7 Billion for Transmission in Europe (Boon for Wind & Solar Energy) | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Three Israeli Innovations That Could Power U.S. Renewables | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Airborne Wind Turbines Win Award | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Texas Wind Power to Double by 2013 | CleanTechnica

  • Peter Staudt-Fischbach

    The molten salt is storing thermal energy, perfect for thermal solar power plants because the first stage of tapping the power of the sun is thermal there. It would be very inefficient though for storage of electric energy in the case of wind power. You would lose a tremendous amount of energy because of pure physics (Carnot cycle). Pumped storage plants would be much more efficient (energy as well as cost) in this case.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for the note/explanation!

    • http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com.au/ Ronald Brak

      Actually efficiencies are not a problem. We are pretty much 100% efficient at turning electricity into heat. Making heat is the one thing physics lets us do real efficiently. If a combination of strong winds and low demand frequently pushes electricity prices towards zero then it could make sense to use that excess electricity to heat molten salts. This could be done at a stand alone molten salt thermal storage facillity or one that is part of a solar thermal plant.

      Carnot cycle inefficiencies aren’t a problem as they apply to the heating steam and making turbines spin end of things and are the same no matter where the heat originally comes from.

    • CB

      Pumped storage is absolutely the way to go… if you have a few tons of water and a height differential nearby. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of places where you can do this.

      Thermal salt storage, however, can be done wherever you can dig a pit. Efficiencies getting the energy back out are low compared to pumped storage and especially batteries, but the system will last forever, unlike battery storage, and there is also no toxic waste problem.

      If you used the waste heat to process garbage, sewage and ag waste into biochar and fuel gas, you could go carbon-negative very easily, and generate non-petroleum based fertiliser and transportation fuel for applications that absolutely require chemical energy.

      You could also use it to maximise efficiency of existing dirty power plants and ease the transition to renewable electric power… The possible down side is the cost of insulation, pumping mechanism corrosion and heating elements. The rest is pretty inexpensive, and there are no technical hurdles to any of it.

      • Bob_Wallace

        There are more than enough places to install pump-up.

        In the US we’ve got ~80,000 existing dams. We use ~2,500 for hydro generation. At least 10% of the others have sufficient head and are reasonably close to transmission lines.

        We could also use abandoned mines. Some are very deep and already flooded at lower levels. Build a reservoir at the mine exit level and install pump/turbine. There are probably transmission lines already installed which carried power to the mines.

        Finally there’s closed loop. Build one reservoir high, one low. Fill the system with springtime water. One company is working on building closed loop in Utah. Another company is working on drilled well closed loop. Use a tunnel boring machine to create a lower, underground reservoir close to a river.

        Sodium-ion batteries are not toxic. Third party tests have demonstrated >5,000 100% DoD cycles and it is expected that cycle life will increase to 20,000.

        If you’re storing waste heat in salt for future electricity generation, then that might make sense. But using electricity to heat the salt, don’t see that becoming affordable.

        • CB

          I think it’s rather a question of setting the cost of carbon emissions too. If you want to look at the long-term, we have to be sequestering carbon, not merely ceasing to produce it.

          The pumped storage option is excellent where there are existing, appropriate sites. I live in California, where available water is drying up and there are already problems with delta smelt being sucked into pump systems to send drinking water down to LA. If you were to multiply those pump systems by the thousands of times you’d need to buffer current energy consumption appropriately, I think it would cause quite catastrophic damage to the environment.

          Creating our own reservoirs would be inordinately expensive. If you take a naturally-occurring pumped reservoir system like Ludington, for example, 27 billion gallons of water gets you 15 gigawatt-hours of energy. To run a city like San Francisco reliably for 10 days with no power, you’d need 10 times that amount, which would require the construction of a holding facility for 270 billion gallons of water! It’s just not feasible.

          In contrast, with molten salt thermal storage, you could achieve the same thing with around a 200 million gallon salt storage unit (around the size of a city block)… and that’s using generation figures from solar concentrators which are limited by the sun as to how much heat you can add.

          Basically, molten salt in practise is at least 1000 times more energy dense than your average pumped storage system. If you don’t have to build the containment and there aren’t any ecological or seismic concerns, it’s a no-brainer to use pumped storage, but otherwise, it’s just nonsense.

  • Pingback: Wholesale Price of Electricity Drops to $0.00 in Texas, Due to Wind Energy | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Big Wind Farms Cost More Than Small Ones | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Wind Power Record Set in texas | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Peanut Butter Prices Rising Due to Climate Change

  • Pingback: Chance to Win Vespa! (from Wind Power Innovator) | Planetsave

  • Pingback: Food — Not for Everyone | Planetsave

  • CB

    Has anyone heard anything about storing wind energy in molten salts the way they do with solar concentrators?

    It seems to me you could cover all human power needs with some wind turbines, long-distance high voltage lines and a great pile of molten salt you could use to generate baseload power even when the wind wasn’t blowing… My calculations are that you could get somewhere around 40% efficiency end-to-end with the bulk of the inefficiency being in the electrical generators.

    If more energy-dense batteries don’t come along, it might be a good option, and shouldn’t have the toxic and expensive stuff most batteries have in them.

    • Anonymous

      Hmm, I haven’t heard about it at all. Something to look into and ask some technical experts about. :D

      • CB

        Molten salts are being used to store power in reflective solar concentrators for use overnight. I don’t see why they couldn’t be used to store wind energy as well. It seems to me salt is cheap, relatively non-toxic, and the energy density can be higher than batteries. Given the extremely high efficiencies of electrical transmission, you could have a huge centralised heat storage plant, maybe with auxiliary solar power, maybe with ag waste nearby for biochar production that you could use to create electricity when the wind doesn’t blow… you could actually go carbon-negative for very little money, as long as the storage unit didn’t require any fancy materials… a big if, I suppose.

    • Anonymous

      There’s a storage technique which has been talked about for a few years which may be given a try. Rather than making electricity the turbine will drive an air compressor, either through a drive shaft or hydraulic system. The compressed air will be stored in an underground chamber and used, when needed, to drive a generator to create electricity.

      They are projecting costs as low as power from natural gas plants and if so they are likely to push gas off the grid as gas prices rise. And as carbon taxes appear.

      http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/how-sustainxs-latest-patent-will-improve-grid-storage/9743

      • CB

        I’ve read a little bit about compressed air storage, but I’m not sure how you’d get decent efficiency with it, plus I’m suspicious the cost would be fairly high and you’d be limited to how much energy you could store.

        Batteries are the most efficient way to go for buffering, but even with the best ones we have now, the density is so low, we’d have to cover an entire city with batteries 3 feet high in order to guarantee the ability to run it for several days without external power… plus, they’re expensive, toxic and wear out quickly.

        With heat storage, however, there’s no limit to how much energy you can store, the more you insulate, the lower the energy dissipation, the salt used to store it is cheap and non-toxic, and you can use existing microwave generators to get the energy in, and existing high-efficiency turbines to extract it again. You can also heat and cool it as much as you want, and it’ll never wear out.

        A lot of times, the given cost of wind power doesn’t include buffering, which is a shame, but I don’t think the problem is insurmountable.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I suspect you’re behind the times when it comes to batteries. The technology has advanced.

          Any idea what the efficiency for a microwave -> salt -> turbine system might be?

          • CB

            I calculated about 40%, mostly due to the turbines.

            I read about some liquid batteries being developed at MIT by a guy named Sadoway, but as far as I know, there’s still no demonstrated application of the technology.

            I do know of an installed Ni-Cd array they built in Fairbanks, and the energy density of the thing is appalling. It’ll only give you 26 megawatts for 15 minutes, and it’s a huge monster.

            Molten salts are being used in power towers already in Spain and elsewhere. It seems to me it would be fairly simple to scale it up by digging a giant insulated pit and filling it with salt and heating elements… totally earthquake-proof and inexpensive too.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Forty percent isn’t good enough. That would mean that stored 6 cent wind would be 14 cent electricity – before the cost of the storage system was added in.

            Pump-up hydro is 85% efficient. And we’ve got hundreds/thousands of existing dams that could be converted. We could also use abandoned mines and do closed-loop systems.

            There are new battery technologies coming into manufacturing which test at over 85% efficiency and should store electricity as low as 1.5 cents per kWh. That would make stored 6 cent wind about 9 cents.

          • CB

            It would only be 40% efficient when buffering, which would not necessarily be all the time. If you had a long-distance, high-voltage smart grid (something I remember president Obama proposing a few years back), you’d minimise the amount of buffering you’d need with wind… but you’d still need some buffering, or else renewables will always be auxiliary and it will never be possible to get rid of dirty baseload power like coal.

            Pump-up hydro is definitely more efficient, but I’m not so sanguine about the number of places you could do it … plus, it doesn’t have the added benefit of using the waste heat in a molten salt system to pyrolyse our waste stream. If you were to do that, you could go carbon negative in addition to turning the tables on baseload coal.

            My issue with batteries is the toxic waste problem, plus the speed with which they wear out. I think they’ll be indispensable for transportation, but not so useful for buffering… We’ll see though. Once we get a global carbon tax, it may turn out to be cheaper because of the efficiencies even with the added cost of replacement and recycling.

          • Bob_Wallace

            The HVDC is being built one step at a time. Right now the push is to get Montana wind tied into the two existing Western Grid HVDC lines – the Pacific Intertie and Intermountain Intertie.

            There’s also, I believe, a leg being worked on in the Midwest.

            Sodium-ion batteries have nothing toxic in them. 5,000 cycles are good for ~14 years of once per day full cycles. If they get used to move wind from night to morning and solar from midday to evening then their life drops to ~7 years. 20,000 cycles multiplies those lives by 4x.

            Here’s some data on available dams…

            http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/1834/Sec1834_EPA.pdf

          • CB

            Connecting the Montana wind is definitely a big step, but I’d love to know why population centers like Chicago and New York aren’t connected with HVDC. Offshore wind in both of these places is fairly decent, and they are huge power draws. Out west, it seems like they should connect the Norcal coast with the pacific intertie. Wind is supposed to be pretty good out there too.

            I would assume sodium-ion batteries have even lower energy densities than Ni-Cds, or else they’d already be in use all over the place… plus, once again: you can heat and cool molten salt indefinitely. It doesn’t wear out.

            You’re running into a power issue with the dams too. According to the paper, the most they can give you nationwide is 6GW, which doesn’t come close to matching the 400GW of electrical energy you’d need to buffer the whole country. With thermal storage, there’s no limit to the amount of power you could generate.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There is, IIRC, a HVDC line being run between Midwest wind and Chicago.

            Hooking Chicago and NY, I don’t see the usefulness of that at this point. Both have unique power sources.

            Offshore is almost certain to happen both off the east coast and in the Great Lakes. The first farm is being very slow to get started but once a few turbines are up and running I would expect installations to accelerate.

            The study of federal lands, two points. First, IIRC, 6GW is the amount of new generation. You need to dig through the tables to see how many dams have adequate head and availability but were eliminated as gen sources because they don’t have adequate inflow for year round production. Those are the pump-up candidates. And that study covered only dams on federal lands, a small percentage of total existing dams.

            Energy density is not a significant problem for grid storage. The batteries will be parked in less expensive real estate, not hauled from stop light to stop light.

            I know you’re in love with the idea of hot salt, but at 40% efficiency it isn’t likely to be a used technology.

            Thermal storage makes sense for thermal solar and, possibly, for stored waste heat.

            BTW, sodium-ion batteries are 100% recyclable. They can be rebuilt and reused.

          • CB

            lol! Hot salt just seems like a much better storage option for places that don’t have readily available water reservoirs, and (in lieu of better batteries) required to meet the majority of our buffering needs… plus, there’s the carbon sequestration benefit.

            All thermal plants operate at 40% efficiency: coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc. It’s a theoretical thermodynamic limitation of the turbines. One thing heat gets you though is readily dispatchable power, to a much greater degree than hydro can provide.

            As far as batteries go, the energy density isn’t a technical problem, it’s a cost problem. We could cover huge areas with sodium-ion units to buffer renewable energy, but you have that stuff spread out everywhere and going bad every few years, and it’s a maintenance nightmare. You’d need a small army to keep the thing going. You might be doubling the efficiency, but you’re multiplying your cost by a factor of 10 or more.

            If you have a single thermal storage plant, however, you have one point that needs to be repaired if pumps fail or turbines go down. You’d need just a few specialists to take care of entire cities, and you could cut corners wherever you wanted! There’s absolutely no danger of nuclear or toxic waste entering the environment.

            The idea with connecting population centers is to minimise times when you require buffering. If the wind is blowing offshore in NYC, but not in Chicago, you pipe whatever you don’t need in NYC west and you meet your needs without having to store any of it. It’s the same with Norcal/Socal. Both sites have decent offshore wind and population centers. If you connect them, you minimise storage requirements. Then, if you connect the coasts with inland wind and population centers, you’ve picked all the low-hanging fruit in terms of eliminating buffering requirements… you’d still need some buffering though.

          • Bob_Wallace

            What’s the cost of using electricity to heat salt and then using that heat to make electricity again?

            Can you do it for less than $0.015/kWh?

            Remember to figure in the <40% efficiency along with capex.

            (You're going to have a loss going in as well as the loss driving the turbine.)

            Hydro is immensely dispatchable. Second only to batteries. Gas turbines are a very distant third.

            Where (other than deserts where no one lives) do we not have enough water to charge a closed-loop hydro system?

            Distributed storage has a large advantage in that it doesn't require new transmission lines. Storing power at the 'community level' facilitates more rooftop solar on the grid.

            Yes, there is value in connecting all of North America into one big grid, but that's something we'll work our way toward by expanding the capability of local grids.

          • CB

            It looks like solar thermal plants cost about $0.30/kWh, where the biggest cost is the heliostat arrays. If you want to be generous and say the storage portion accounts for half of that, you’re left with $0.15/kWh, which is already in the hydro neighbourhood of around $0.08 to $0.16. The 40% figure is round-trip and included in this cost. Heating something is pretty much 100% efficient.

            It is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, because it’s storage not generation, but my guess is that you’d get better economies of scale the larger you built the thermal storage unit, and if you had to BUILD your own hydro system, you’d knock yourself out of the park with expenses. You don’t merely need water to do hydro inexpensively, you need mountains or some kind of terrain with a bottleneck.

            It’s not the dispatchability of hydro that’s a problem, it’s the power. With a temperature differential of thousands of degrees, you can get almost whatever power you want out of a thermal plant, but you can only drain a lake so quickly… that’s why the 6 GW maximum is important.

            Distributed storage is fine with cold-storage techniques, but when you’re talking about heat, the larger the storage unit, the lower your energy leakage. Considering the crazy-efficiency of transmitting power over HVDC (something like 98% per 1000km), it makes sense to have a centralised unit.

            There are about 16,000,000 Angelenos who might disagree with you about no one living in the desert, BTW…

          • Bob_Wallace

            Obviously you’re just making up numbers.

            We’ll see if anyone builds thermal storage, aside from thermal solar systems, or if other storage systems dominate.

          • CB

            Lol! From what I read, thermal solar costs on average $0.30/kWh, with the storage cost being only part of the total. From what I read, hydro costs $0.08/kWh to $0.16/kWh, with a reverse-pumped system and fluid containment system not being included in this cost.

            If you think these numbers are wrong, feel free to provide your own.

            We WILL see if anyone builds thermal storage systems, or any kind of storage systems, but I rather think this is more a question of whether or not humans get our act together before we go extinct.

  • Pingback: British Columbians Supportive of Wind Energy as Industry Aims for 2025 Goals | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Arista Power Introduces Portable Micro Wind Turbine | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Wind Energy Webinar — Interesting Information & Graphs | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Canadian Wind Power Capacity On Track For Record 2011 | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: World Energy Report (Infographic) | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Eos Rechargable Zinc-Air Battery: Energy Storage “El Dorado?” | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: How Obama Could Get His Job Groove Back | ecopolitology

  • Pingback: 24 Governors Ask Obama to Focus on Wind Energy Deployment | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Bringing Wind Power Down To Earth | Ecopreneurist

  • Pingback: Solar Power Intro & 3 Key Solar Power Points (+ Top Solar Power News) | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: New Wind Turbines 300X More Powerful than in 1996 (+ Top Wind Power Stories) | CleanTechnica

  • Pingback: Plastic World (Infographic) – Green Living Ideas

  • Pingback: Plastic in Our Oceans, & How to Keep it Out {Infographic} – Blue Living Ideas

  • Pingback: Captain Planet, He’s our Hero! | CleanTechnica

  • Anonymous

    The numbers for wind in 2010 have come in. The US installed 5,113 more MWs of turbines and China installed almost four times as much (18,928MW).

    The price of turbines has fallen back to about where it was in 2006 and is expected to fall further as manufacturers learn how to make even more efficient turbines for less money.

    Taller, longer blade, more efficient turbines have brought the price of wind-generated electricity to $0.03/kWh. The cost of transmission will raise that price for wind which has to be harvested further from existing power lines.

    We’re on track (somewhat ahead of) to produce 20% of all US electricity by 2030.

    The cost of integrating wind into the overall grid is quite low, less than one-half cent per hWh.

    Transmission and/or on-site storage will be the big wind issues going forward. Until these issues are resolved we will have to burn more natural gas than we would otherwise need to do.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-do-winds-cost-price-and-performance-trends-show-three-cents-per-kilowa/

  • Pingback: 10 Wind Energy News Stories {Weekly Round-Up} | CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Anonymous

    “Wind energy capacity is expected to deliver lumpy growth, but will roughly triple from 2010 to 2017, according to Pike Research.

    According to Pike, wind farm projects have an 18-month project cycle and that means some lumpy growth rates. In 2008 and 2009, wind power had strong growth rates of 29 percent and 32 percent, respectively. But 2010 wind power capacity fell 22 percent due to the resession.

    Overall growth rates for wind installations will fall short of the 2008 and 2009 booms, but remain healthy. Pike is projecting that overall capacity will grow from 194.3 gigawatts in 2010 to 562.9 gigawatts by 2017. In 2017, wind power installations will be a $153 billion industry worldwide, up from $56 billion in 2010.”

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/global-wind-capacity-expected-to-triple-by-2017/17590

  • Pingback: True Value of Solar Power – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines — An Option for You? – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Wind Power Subsidies Don’t Compare to Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Subsidies – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Why Wind Intermittency is NOT a Big Deal – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Anonymous

    Good article on San Gorgonio Pass wind farms that gives one a feel for what it’s like in a wind farm area (and why few people live there).  Good pictures….

    “A drive through the forests of turbines in the San Gorgonio Pass, one of
    the first places where utility-scale wind was developed, was a perfect
    way to close out Windpower 2011,
    the industry’s annual conclave. The modern history of the wind industry
    is on display in the Pass, represented by the many generations of
    technology that are still generating electricity there.”

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-is-winds-yesterday-telling-winds-tomorrow-in-the-san-gorgonio-pass/

    • L33t4im

      Believe it or not, but some people have complained about the shadows generated from wind turbine blades, saying that they make the person dizzy and, in some cases, are believed to have caused traumatic stress, anxiety, confusion, and even hysteria. Next time you have a second, turn your ceiling fan on low and watch the shadows generated from the blades. Do this for long enough and you’ll notice the effects.

      • Bob_Wallace

        The key word here – “hysteria”.

        For a few hours per night, during a few nights of the year, spinning blades could cause ‘moon flickering’. It’s not likely that sun shadows would be noticeable unless one was straining to see them.

        I recall an interview with someone who lived close to a turbine. When asked about how she dealt with the flicker she replied “I just close the blinds”.

        Turbines turn much too slowly to trigger seizures in people with epilepsy. (It can happen with window fans.)

        Studies have found no adverse health effects caused by wind turbines. But if one works themselves into a dither over being close to a spinning turbine then they could potentially damage their own health.

        Self-induced stress, anxiety, and confusion. Don’t we see people do that sort of stuff to themselves from time to time? There’s smart meters, black helicopters, Y2K, ….

  • Anonymous

    Good article on worldwide wind….

    “Given that we are still only just emerging from the worst recession
    in more than 50 years, what does this imply for the future of the wind
    technology sector? All things considered, wind power is expected to
    deliver 1.92% of the world’s electricity in 2011 and current indications
    are that it may be able to meet 9.1% of global electricity demand by
    2020. Looking forward, the report projects an average global growth rate
    of 15.5% per year for new annual installations through 2015, resulting
    in a total global capacity of 513.6 GW by 2015.

    In the less predictable five-year period 2016-2020, the expectation
    is for an average annual growth rate of approximately 11.5%, closing in
    on the 1000 GW milestone by the end of 2020. By then, based on the
    International Energy Agency’s prediction of overall demand, wind power
    is expected to supply 9.1% of the world’s electricity, the analysis
    concludes.”

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/from-the-editor15

  • Pingback: China Wind Power Blowing Up in 2011 (as Expected) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: {One of the Best Videos on the Web} Darth Vader Kid & Rep. Ed Markey on Clean Energy & Oil – Planetsave.com: climate change and environmental news

  • Anumakonda Jagadeesh

    Fantastic information on Wind in the World. A great painstaking effort to put all the information with authentic statistics at one place. Congratulations Clean Technica for publishing this.

    Dr.A.Jagadeesh  Nellore(AP),India
    Wind Energy Expert
    E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

    • Anonymous

      Thank You Much :D

      Still have a ways to go… :D

  • Pingback: 3 Key Wind Power Challenges & A Call to Action – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Anonymous

    A good summary of wind in 2010 by Stefan Gsänger the Secretary-general of the World Wind Energy Association.  I’ll copy the first few paragraphs…

    “In 2010 the total global installed wind capacity reached some
    196,630 MW showing sustained growth on 2009′s 159,050 MW, 2008′s 120,903
    MW, and 2007′s 93,930 MW.

    Despite this impressive increase, investment in new turbines in
    fact saw a decline in many parts of the world. For the first time in
    more than two decades the turbine market fell against the previous year
    to 37,642 MW in 2010, down from 2009′s 38,312 MW.
    Global turnover for the sector reached €40 billion (US$55 billion) in
    2010, down 20 percent on the €50 billion ($70 billion) in 2009. This decrease was largely due to lower prices for wind turbines.”(Note:  a downturn in 2010 reflects the global financial recession which brought an overall decrease in investment and power usage.)Here’s a good summary of wind installed on each continent…”The total global installed wind capacity at the end of 2010 could
    potentially contribute 430 TWh annually, representing 2.5 percent of
    total global demand.
    In some countries and regions wind has become one of the largest
    electricity sources. For instance in terms of wind share, Denmark is the
    world leader with 21 percent, Portugal follows with 18 percent, Spain
    at 16 percent, and Germany with 9 percent. In China, wind contributed
    1.2 percent to overall electricity supply, while in the US, wind’s share
    reached about 2 percent.
    By the end of 2010 about 670,000 people were employed worldwide, both
    directly and indirectly, in the various branches of the wind sector.
    Within five years, the number of jobs has almost tripled, from 235,000
    in 2005.”http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/world-wind-outlook-down-but-not-out

  • Pingback: Renewable Energy in Germany Going to Get a Boost from Wind Energy Superhighway – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: U.S. Wind Power Increasingly American-made (Creating U.S. Manufacturing Jobs) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Germany Making It Easier to Build Offshore Wind Farms – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Wind Power is Making Electricity Cheaper (Exxon: Wind to be Cheapest Source of Electricity) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: World’s Largest Offshore Wind Turbine to be Constructed in North Sea – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Projected Wind Power Growth (Worldwide) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Installed Wind Power Capacity per Capita (Country Comparisons) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views