World's Largest Wind Farm

A new project will produce 845 megawatts of power.

Kevin Bullis 12/11/2009

25 Comments

This week GE announced that it has a $1.4 billion contract to supply wind turbines for what it says will be the largest wind farm in the world. It will be built in 2011 and 2012. The project will spread out over nearly 80 square kilometers in Oregon, consist of 338 wind turbines, and will have the potential to provide 845 megawatts of power.

That's almost as much power as a single nuclear power plant.

The project is smaller than one announced by T. Boone Pickens, the founder and chairman of BP Capital, which would have had a 4,000 megawatt capacity. That plan fell apart because of problems with the economy and transmission lines for the power.

Return of the Steam Engine? EPA Closer to Regulating Greenhouse Gases

Close Comments

spad12

58 Comments

786 Days Ago
12/12/2009

Almost.... not really

"That's almost as much power as a single nuclear power plant."

Not quite, a typical reactor is around 1Gwe, some as big as 1.7GWe. Power plants will have anywhere from 1-3 reactors, the Palo Verde Plant in Arizona is the largest, and puts out about 3.8 GWe.

Now you also have to account for the capacity factor, nuclear has a capacity factor of about 95%, wind, 33%. So you can count on that ~800MW of wind power to actually produce ~266 MW if you average it out over a year.

Also remember that you have to back up wind generation with natural gas, so yeah....

lkrndu

36 Comments

786 Days Ago
12/12/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Not really.

How does the comparison really look, once you consider the extremely heavy cost penalties for nuclear: initial cost, startup, safety management, and - oh - yes - what to do with the spent fuel and assorted radwastes?

spad12

58 Comments

786 Days Ago
12/12/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

even considering those costs, nuclear is still cheaper.

With this case you are paying about $1650 per kW, if you use a capacity factor of ~33% you get about $5000 per kW. Now most of this cost is the wind turbines alone, which you have to replace every 20 years. This would give you a cost of roughly $250 per kWy. Of course this doesn't factor in back up generating costs, or energy storage costs.

For nuclear, the first few new plants will be built for about $5000 per kW, this includes decommissioning costs, waste disposal, etc. It maybe more, maybe less, but the ones built later will be built for significantly less. Current reactors have had license extensions to 60 years, with some expecting further extensions to 80 years. This would give nuclear a cost of about $62.5 per kWy.

So, what is cheaper? Wind at $250 per kWy or nuclear at $62.5 per kWy?

The problem with wind and solar is scale. Their small scale is advantages for smaller localized projects, because they can be built in small units. However, for a full base load, electrical infrastructure, you need a highly reliable, high power base power source. A few windmills, on the order of a couple hundred MW overall is cheaper than nuclear, but per generating capacity it is not.

Also consider the cost in land. Using the figures for this project, 2GWe at this projects power density, normalized to capacity factor is about 3.48 MW per sqkm, this means that the area required to generate 2GW is about 573 sqkm. A nuclear power plant has an energy density of about 5883 MW per sqkm so you need about .4 sqkm to generate 2GWe. Nuclear sites tend to include large nature preserve areas that are used as exclusion zones for safety purposes.

giustino

2 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Sounds like you work in the nuclear industry. You need to update your numbers for wind costs per KW. I work in the wind industry and can tell you that turbine plus BoP costs amount to approx. $2000 per kW. Nuclear costs are only rising; the ore is not a renewable resource.

Wind can account for all its costs and they are dropping. Can nuclear? Just how are you accounting for the tens of thousands of years of spent waste life? Just how are you accounting for the decommissioned reactor? So a reactor may last a little longer than a wind turbine; but to decommission a reactor you have to bury it in concrete. Are you going to be around for 20K and can assure me the safety of that pile of concrete? Discount one guy and a rifle around that perimeter for 20,000 years and we'll talk costs buddy.

paperpushermj

4 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

When you find a place where the wind blows just right- not to light or to strong 24/7 365 days a year. And when you need a
sudden pop in out put to meet demand and the wind senses that and picks up like magic so Millions can sleep at night with their AC on. Why you put that in your pipe and call me in the morning.

spad12

58 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Note, all of my numbers for wind came from the case in this article. I used a base cost of $1650, if I use your number of $2000, then it becomes even more expensive. The reason the cost of nuclear has been going up is because we haven't built a plant here in the US in about 30 years, and there are a large number of bureaucratic factors involved that drive the costs up. Reactors in France have been built for a very low cost, about $2000 per kW, in some cases less.

Yes, uranium is a finite resource, but then you also have thorium, which has about 4 times the abundance of uranium. When you factor in reprocessing, more advanced reactor design, thorium fuel cycle, etc, we have enough uranium and thorium to meet the worlds energy needs for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Renewable is all about your timescale, as eventually even the sun will die, and you won't have any wind.

Surface area is also a finite resource. Eventually the worlds energy requirements would dictate that a significant portion of the land be covered in windmills. Yes, you can still use the land under a windmill for farming, but that is about it.

Waste is another thing that people bring up. To address this I'll ask and answer a few questions:

1) Why is the waste so dangerous?
Answer: It is giving off large amounts of radiation, which is a form of energy. The reason you would build a repository instead of a dump is because that "waste" can eventually become a valuable resource.

2) Is geologic storage safe and viable?
Answer: Look into the Oklo Natural Reactor. This is a sustained nuclear chain reaction that started up about 2 billion years ago, and went on for about 200,000 years. It produced all the waste products that our modern reactors produce. These waste products sat in an area that had completely non-ideal conditions for waste storage, including heavily fractured rock, and exposure to groundwater, yet over the course of 2 Billion years, the waste products migrated only a couple of meters.

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/y1026tv1rh7u2229/fulltext.pdf

As for decommissioning and waste disposal costs. Decommissioning is included in the overnight costs. Waste disposal is paid for by a small cost per kWh production on the utility. This tax on the utility companies has so far made about $30 Billion, $8 billion of which has been spent on Yucca mountain.

If you really want to see how much electricity costs when it comes to wind vs. nuclear, look at Europe. Note that electricity in Denmark, which is about 20% wind, costs twice as much as it does in France, which is 80% nuclear.

giustino

2 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Oh, and one more thing. You're not being truthful on the land density. You can farm or ranch around turbines...your numbers are for the total size of the wind farms which are still owned by ranchers and farmers who work the land. Only now they have a nice income stream to help them out. Wind is breathing new life into so many small communities and farms which had all but died due to large scale corporate farming.

prime3end

13 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Land Use: An abstract available in the last couple weeks,,, work by Caltech, claims that precisely placed vertical axis wind turbines(VAWTs) can be placed very close together without spoiling each others wind, they apparently feed off one another to some extent if placed right. They claim up to 200 times more electric power per acre can be generated. I found the abstract on the American Physical Society's webpage, and Google has some stories on it under the news tab. Has anyone read it and what do you think of it? If the VAWTs are on towers the ground below would still be usable for agriculture, etc.

bkrichard

1 Comment

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Thank you for correcting Mr. Bullis' comment. It amazes me that so many science writers make these comparisons, leaving false impressions. Even in the New York Times! TR should know better.

Kevin Bullis

177 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Almost.... not really

Spad12,
Thanks for the comment. My point was that the wind farm, even though it would be the largest, is still not even as big as single nuclear power plant. In other words, wind has a long way to go.

Kevin

dancrissco

54 Comments

785 Days Ago
12/13/2009

Wind Farms & Solar Farms

Can wind farms & solar farms coexist. I believe there was a worry about migratory bird paths. Could we train a army of birds employed by GE to guide the migratory birds on a bypass lane. We are talking about building bird lanes. Could be an opportunity for some innovative companies to have a contract with GE to keep the birds away.

DJTal

154 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Wind Farms & Solar Farms

It could be done if the solar collectors were placed on top of the wind turbines, which could be easily achieved with the vertical axis design.

1director1

1 Comment

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Wind Farm

Wilbraham MA FloDesigned Wind Turbines prototypes are three times more efficient than 3 bladed windmills. Using design features borrowed from jet engine design. The new design can produce electricity at lower wind speeds and in the midst of more volatile wind gusts, making it a shoo-in for spots – like beaches and cities – that have hertefore been inhospitable for wind power generation.

DJTal

154 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: Wind Farm

So, the best three bladed turbines are 40-45% efficient, multiply that by three and you have 120-135% efficient. Sorry, but no way.

Siphon

152 Comments

774 Days Ago
12/24/2009

Re: Wind Farm

Yeah. Sounds way too fantastic. That claim may have something to do with venturi mechanisms. Even then, FloDesign doesn't really look that promising, the swept area is reduced more than even the fantastic efficiency claim might compensate. It looks expensive to build as well, compared to simple three bladed design.

I see no reason to switch.

vanzandtj

21 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

availability

Spad12: I'll quibble with your comment above: I suggest that the problem with wind and solar power is not scale, but availability.
I would like to see your cost comparison refined. For example:
For each MW of wind generation capacity, you have to do some combination of these:
(1) Also build a MW of some other kind of power plant, like gas. (This is because the outages are unpredictable. If you had a dam with a MW of generating capacity, but rainfall limited actual generation to 1/3 of that, then you would need back-up generating capacity of only 2/3 of the MW.) I suggest you add the capital cost of the gas generator, plus the fuel cost for 2/3 of the MW.
(2)Add enough energy storage capacity to bridge periods of low wind. Say, a day's worth? You could combine this with (1) using diabatic compressed air energy storage (CAES). However, based on the wikipedia numbers for CAES, the net energy storage efficiency is only about 50%. It would be justified if gas prices are high enough.
(3) Shed some load during low-wind periods. Say, if the wind power were used for desalinization of seawater, or pumping irrigation water. In this case the cost of the wind power should include the extra capital cost of water desalinization or pumping capacity which is unused 2/3 of the time, plus storage capacity. (This would limit the wind power contribution to cover only the part of the load that could be shed.)
(4) Spread the wind farm over a larger area. The capital cost of wind power should also include the transmission line - at least the connections within the wind farm (approximately the minimum turbine separation times the number of turbines), and preferably also the line from the farm to the load (likely further than from a comparatively compact nuclear plant). Depending on distant wind turbines to make up for local shortages will increase the length and cost of the transmission lines. Also, it takes decades to approve and build long-distance transmission lines.

The revisions would make it even more expensive relative to nuclear.

spad12

58 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: availability

This is what I am trying to get at when I refer to "scale". I have to say it so often that I get tired of having to spell it out.

At lower penetration, and smaller scale wind production you don't really have to worry about backing it up, storing the energy, or shutting down generation. Issues start to show up when you scale wind generation up to a level associated with nuclear and coal generation, especially when you start to get into penetration percentages of >5%-10%, at which your excess power production shoots through the roof, and the intermittency presents major load balancing problems.

When you start having to deal with these issues the costs increase by a lot, but most people don't think about this. Most people see the cost of 1 windmill, a couple million, and then the cost of a nuclear power plant, about $10 billion, and immediately assume wind is cheaper, when in reality it takes several hundred to several thousand windmills to even come close to the output of a single nuclear plant in nameplate capacity, let alone once you factor in the capacity factor of 33%.

The other component of scale is deployment time. Sure, it only takes a couple of weeks to get a windmill online, but if you look at various wind farm projects, divide the full deployment time by just the nameplate capacity, you end up seeing that if you were to build the same nameplate power generation in both wind and nuclear, it would take you longer to get the full wind deployment online. Even though you can build windmills one at a time, and the time for a single windmill isn't that long, you still have to wait till full deployment in order to shut down the coal plant you are replacing. That of course is with nameplate capacity, when you factor in that in reality you have to build more than 3x your nameplate capacity in order to actually generate your nameplate capacity reliably with storage, you end up getting significantly larger time frames. You end up reaching a point where, on a wind farm that would produce base power equivalent to a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant, you have to start replacing the first windmills built before you even finish the project.

Wind operates on a megawatt scale, solar on a kilowatt. Nuclear and Coal operate on the gigawatt scale, a thousand times that of wind, and a million times that of solar.

spad12

58 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Re: availability

Here are some numbers for ya:

For an intermittent power source, the total generation capability that you need to use it as a base power source is given by:

(Design Power) = (Target Power)*(1-Cp)/((Se*Cp)+1)

where Cp is your capacity factor, and Se is your storage efficiency.
Looking at what it would take to replace all current Carbon producing electricity generation:

Total Power Generation in the US: 994,888 MW
Total CO2 Based Power Generation in the US: 770,699 MW
Median State Area (Illinois): 149,997 sq km

Wind:
Current Power: 16,515 MW
Capacity Factor: 33%
Storage Efficiency: 60%
Total Generation Required: 3,378,619 MW
Storage Capacity Required: 1,358,205 MW
% increase in Generating Capacity: 20,458%
Number of 1.5 MW units: 1,870,231
Total Area Required (10.5 MW per sqkm): 319,945 sq km
Number of States (using the median state size, which would be Illinois): 2.13
Generation Cost($1650 per kW): $5.574 Trillion
Storage Cost ($1.25 million per MW): $1.697 Trillion
Total Cost: $7.272 Trillion

*Wind cost and land usage were calculated using the information in the article.

Nuclear:
Current Power: 100,266 MW
Capacity Factor: 95%
Storage Efficiency: 0%
Total Generation Capacity Required: 811,262 MW
Storage Capacity Required: 0 MW
% increase in Generating Capacity: 809%
Number of 2 GWE Plants: 405
Total Area Required: 1846 sq km
Number of States: .012
Cost ($4000 per kW): $3.245 Trillion
Storage Cost: $0
Total Cost: $3.245 Trillion

Siphon

152 Comments

774 Days Ago
12/24/2009

Re: availability

Good comments, though one complicating factor is that demand isn't 24/7 flat out power. It varies a lot, daily and seasonally. That 100,000 MW generating capacity actually produces only 4,000,000,000 MWh which is the full load equivalent of maybe 45,000 MW. So 45% capacity factor for the USA fleet total over the year.

Without storage, you would have to halve your capacity factor for the nuclear powerplants, plus you need some way to deal with seasonal peaks. It probably makes more sense to have a day of storage and some seasonal backup, perhaps biomass if available.

For wind it is more complicated since it is irregular daily, weekly, and seasonally as well.

It really is an empirical question. You'd have to compare the grid demand data with output of powerplants, and then determine the optimal amount of storage, backup, grid enhancement etc.

In reality, things are always so complicated!

z0rr0

98 Comments

784 Days Ago
12/14/2009

Here are some numbers for ya:

Wind: $7.272 Trillion
Nuclear: $3.245 Trillion
Not-In-My-Backyard: Priceless

tmcmurph

35 Comments

783 Days Ago
12/15/2009

Nuke vs Wind? How about NG

Uh news release for you all. SHALE GAS. 50 to 60 year supply with current known technology. The world is covered in shale deposits. Beats all other energy sources in cost competitiveness. Sorry but neither nukes nor wind can compete. I'm not saying they can't with some development but not now.

Uranium is also getting short in supply so you probably want to make sure you have fuel for your existing reactors much less any new ones.

Wind? Nice to have in the mix but not as a base load supplier.

martinaatayo

112 Comments

783 Days Ago
12/15/2009

Investment Deciding Factor

Investment of the scale in discussion, should not, and must not, be based on sophistication,or luxury associated with any given technology.
Rather,the deciding factor should rest more, on
comprehensive sustainable comparative economic analysis in conjunction with existing energy generating technologies within the framework of
durability and longevity.
Anything short of this approach simply
amounts to an unsmart risk. Thus, folks that advance arguments along the context of economic advantages of wind farm technology over other technologies, inevitably, make a compelling case.
Martin Atayo

johnoyebanji

1 Comment

777 Days Ago
12/21/2009

Economic Wind Energy

With the advent of Airborne Wind Energy technology or High Altitude Wind Power as some may prefer refering to the harnessing of wind energy beyond the heights of typical hard towered WindMills, I think it is certainly more economical for Wind Farm Investors today to consider the Higher Winds option in putting up new Wind Farms. There are good R&D firms ready for the market with proven, demonstrated and demonstrable prototypes that can be scaled up to required size as necessary with funding at prices competitive to current technologies.

badong

1 Comment

757 Days Ago
01/10/2010

RE: Wind Farm

Is the cost more important than the quality of air
we inhale? Will the wind farm provide more jobs to our people? That's the most important questions we should based our decisions. Thanks god, America is wake.

Energy Geek

1 Comment

636 Days Ago
05/11/2010

Wind VS Nuclear

Wind VS Nuclear: An argument that can only take place in the face of abject ignorance!
Strangely, arguments against nuclear energy are as old as the oldest nuclear reactors still in operation. ALL revolve around disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Wind is new, nuclear is not. This apparently makes wind far superior in every way even though there is no empirical data from any jurisdiction that supports these wild claims. In fact, the IPCC gives alternate energy (including wind and solar) a paltry 2% efficacy rating for its ability to reduce CO2. One needs look no further then Denmark, Germany, Spain and California for proof of this fact. NONE of these jurisdictions have realized meaningful reductions in their reliance on fossil fuels or CO2 with regards to electrical generation. However, as has already been pointed out; France enjoys both the cleanest air and amongst the least expensive electricity in the EU from her continuing use of nuclear energy. Furthermore, and this is of paramount importance, France RECYCLES her spent fuel and as a result get 100% more energy per unit volume of fuel then does the US. She also reduces the waste volume by a whopping 90%! France ALMOST does nuclear energy the right way! Yes ALMOST! Science has known since 1946 how to extract ALL the energy from uranium and produce no dangerous wastes whatsoever! This was proven beyond any reasonable doubt between 1984 and 1995 at the Integral Fast Reactor Program at Idaho Falls Idaho, USA, by Dr. Charles Till and his team at Argonne labs. Simply “GOOGLE” it! A document out of the U of California, San Diego in 2005 states: “With Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), known fuel sources will last about as long as intelligent life is likely to exist on the planet. At the estimated year 2050 per capita energy-consumption rate of 2x10 to the 28th power erg/year, this energy source would last for 2.8x10 to the 9th power years, which is a large fraction of remaining human life on the planet with needed energy supplies for 10 billion people enjoying the US standards of living of the year 2000”.
This of course only refers to the uranium that has yet to be mined and distilled from seawater. It does not refer the hundreds of year’s worth of energy currently concentrated in our stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel or decommissioned nuclear weapons.
As also previously stated, thorium can also be used as fuel in nuclear reactors and is especially good fuel in fast breeder reactors! There is estimated to be three times MORE thorium on the planet then uranium. Therefore, we have sufficient pollution free energy reserves to provide all of the energy, all humanity will need for double the estimated remaining life of our sun! Wind, solar, biofuel, hydro and fossil fuels even combined cannot make that claim!
Oh, BTW: Fast reactors are inherently and passively safe as well. This was also proven beyond doubt TWICE on April 3, 1986 at the aforementioned Integral Fast Reactor. Can anyone tell me the results of a similar test on a conventional reactor elsewhere in the world three weeks later?
In this age of information, there is no longer any valid excuse for ignorance! The biggest impediment to clean air, earth and water is conventional environmentalism! I pray for the sake of my children, intelligence will prevail!
The Energy Geek.

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Blog Topics

chevrolet electric vehicles energy ev GM Obama sales Volt