The Wind Still Blows Us In The Direction of Natural Gas
Cris PastoInventor and Director, Engineering & Training – Res-Q-Jack, Inc.
Wind energy is something we hear about often from our friends on the opposite side of the natural gas argument, but what does wind really look like in hard numbers? I took a look at a study I came across and crunched the numbers to see for myself.
As a supporter of natural gas development I have researched many energy forms. I came across an article discussing wind farms. Wind is an alternate source of energy and is mentioned by many people against natural gas development. I took a closer look at wind development based on a quote from Twin Ridges Wind Farm and then plugged and chugged with some numbers to see what wind energy really means to an area.
Comparing wind to natural gas shows exactly why wind power isn’t the best option for our times. Natural gas is a resource we have readily available and it can help our nation become energy independent.
I was curious about the generation claims of these new wind farms. I found this interesting:
“The Twin Ridges Wind Farm is located on the Big Savage Ridge Area in Somerset County, PA, north of the Maryland-Pennsylvania border. The project is located on mixed use and forested lands owned by private landowners. Initial construction began in 4Q 2011 and the project became operational in 2012. The project utilizes 68 REpower MM 92 turbine generators, each with a nameplate rating of 2.05 megawatts. In total, the Twin Ridges Wind Farm has the capacity to generate approximately 140 megawatts of electric power – producing enough electricity to power over 45,000 households each year.”
So, 68 x 2.05 MW does equal a total turbine design capacity of 139.4 MW which is what they promote. They also say this will power over 45,000 households per year. That would be 3097.77 watts per household or just think of running the house on a 3 KW generator. Typically a house probably uses at least 50 amps if a dryer, oven, and refrigerator are being used at once. That would be 50 amp x 120 v or 6000 watts = 6 kw. So maybe they are thinking of an apartment without a dryer.
Oops, I think we have another problem…. Maybe a couple. One major issue is that the wind doesn’t always blow. Another problem is that when the wind does blow, it’s not always within the design operating range for max efficiency.
One more link I found extremely interesting I have quoted below.
“Rated output is reached at a wind speed of around 12m/s – this is the output figure brandished about when the capacities of wind parks are promoted. If we look at the output curve for the state of the art Vestas V112-3.0MW turbine this tells us that at a wind speed of 5m/s the output actually delivered by the turbine is less than 10% of the rated output. Now, 5m/s is a fairly good estimate of the average wind speed in this country; 20-25% higher in the winter period when the electricity demand is higher – so that is good. The fact that the wind speed only reaches the 12m/s+ necessary to run these turbines at rated output in a small fraction of the time is not so good, though.In Germany, where there are wind turbines in mountains and coastal areas, the average load factor, i.e. the ratio of actual output to rated output, is 19%, in The Netherlands 22% and in Denmark also 22% (mainly off-shore). Some proponents of wind power claim it to be higher in the UK but it is difficult to understand why this would be the case. The figures we have seen so far do not seem to support this claim either, so a figure in the 20-25% range is probably realistic, assuming state of the art turbines.”
So, if we assume that we will experience a whopping 25% load factor, than we get about 35 MW or roughly ½ MW per turbine. That drops us down to less than 800 watts per house. No wonder they are pushing the fluorescent bulbs. 800 watts would power (8) 100 watt light bulbs per house for 45,000 houses. Maybe they meant to say enough to power only the lighting needs of 45,000 homes.
They make this statement: wind energy produces 66% more jobs per kw than natural gas – that might be great for jobs if the consumer could afford to pay for almost twice the workforce for the same amount of energy. You only get jobs with subsidies that are unaffordable!
As a mechanical engineer type, I personally like the looks of the wind turbines, but I prefer a natural gas well and they make more sense while we have the fuel abundantly available. If we ever run out, I vote nuclear. They can salvage the radioactive byproducts, thorium, from the windmill mining (neodymium) and power the world for eons.
Also, did you see the “ground densification” information? See the link box titled “ PROCEDURE” at lower right of the home page http://www.everpower.com/projects-twinridges.shtml. That’s quite interesting. I thought thumping and other seismic stuff was bad? Spanking mother earth in such a corporate fashion – shame on them.
Follow Us:
Comments are closed.
When the winds stop blowing the Benzene starts flowing…..1/21/2013 1.5 ppb of Benzene at midnight with winds at only .2 mph at UTArlington campus. http://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/benzene-over-5-times-background-utarlington-air-monitor-last-night/
Almost impossible to follow and you don’t seem to address whether the levels exceed standards.
The impact of patchouli in NY appears to be widespread and may be the cause of significant brain damage with its users as they haven’t been exposed to gas drilling yet. maybe drilling will cure them if they get off the patchouli?
Got some problems with Cris’ math. The fact that a household may use 50 amps if an (electric) dryer, an (electric) oven, and a refrigerator run at the same time seems irrelevant. You can assume that they draw that; that none are powered by gas; and that they all run at the same time. What you can’t assume is that they run all the time, all year long. Cris has to tell us what the average house uses in electricity each year and use that math. He confuses electric draw with yearly consumption and therefore his argument makes no sense.
Also, in terms of workforce, the number of jobs is irrelevant to energy cost, it is the total cost that needs to be reviewed. The result will probably be the same, but we need to review the proper numbers. Maybe wind has more jobs, but maybe gas has greater costs in machinery. We don’t know that because Cris ignores that point.
This discussion deserves a better analysis than this post delivers.
Average US electricity usage 11,495kWh/year, or abut 958kWh/mo. according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Ref.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
actually, it appears some of the numbers the author cites may be even a bit generous.
The math above with respect to 3kw per home is irrelevent as that’s full design capacity without the load factor. they are only delivering 800 watts per home on AVERAGE. That’s going to be a problem at supper time on a weekday if not a problem at most any time. here’s some appliance amperage figures along with wattage draw: http://www.nrel.gov/visitors_center/pdfs/appliancesamperage.pdf
You could likely run one burner on the stove in the dark silence of your cold home.
“Bill” cites that avg usage is 958kWh/mo per household i assume. That would be equivalent to 1330 watts steadily used for 24 hrs per day, 30 days per month. 800 watts won’t cut it.
The numbers are generous for another reason:
Germany is building twenty some new COAL fired electric plants to produce affordable and dependable electric but we don’t hear about that. they were banking on a 30% load factor, but after living in utopia for 10 years now, they’ve discovered they are achieving about 16% or roughly half of what they thought.
so if these new PA mills turn out to be just as productive as the much adorned German green machines, maybe we will get about 400 watts per home. Forget the dryer, oven, or refrigerator if you have the lights on. Actually forget the dryer & oven, unless you are certain the neighbors aren’t using their share.
The sensibility of the green so called “environmentalists” is quite questionable. Wind turbines are an environmental disaster at an extreme cost and they don’t produce – lets build more!
Here’s the full article on Germany changing colors:
August 28, 2012, by Kelvin Kemm, 1 Comment
It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.
In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.
He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.
Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can’t afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.
Just recently, German figures were released on the actual productivity of the country’s wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!
Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place. That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity – versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities.
That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds. But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for: a measly 16.3 percent.
Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies, Germany’s total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly, imperceptible 0.084% of Germany’s electricity over the last 22 years. That is not even one-tenth of one percent.
Moreover, the actual cost of Germany’s wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for “free” solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity.
As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germany’s natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable.
Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about “sustainable living,” a “sustainable future,” and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and “decarbonized” tomorrow. Be warned! What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world.
They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.
Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop, hospital, school and family on the entire African continent.
Meanwhile, in South Africa, an organisation calling itself “Green Truth” has distributed a notice about a newly released movie titled simply “Fuel.” Here is part of the promotional notice:
“FUEL is a comprehensive and entertaining look at energy: A history of where we have been, our present predicament, and a solution to our dependence on foreign oil. Rousing and reactionary, FUEL is an amazing, in-depth, personal journey by eco-evangelist Josh Tickell, of oil use and abuse, as it examines wide-ranging energy solutions other than oil; the faltering US auto and petroleum industries; and the latest stirrings toward alternative energy.
“The film includes interviews with a wide range of policy makers, educators and activists such as Woody Harrelson, Neil Young and Willie Nelson. Tickell knew he just couldn’t idly stand by any longer. He decided to make a film, focusing on the knowledge and insight he discovered, but also giving hope that solutions are at reach. A ‘regular guy’ who felt he could make a difference, he spent 11 years making this movie, showing himself – and others – that an individual can indeed make a difference. Stirring, radical and multi-award winning energy documentary! FUEL features experts and eco-celebrities such as: Sheryl Crow, Larry David, Richard Branson and Robert Kennedy, Jr.”
The notice frequently emphasizes “sustainable living” and “a hopeful future.” And the singers, actors, activists and other energy “experts” featured in the film are all extremely wealthy, and not at all likely to adopt the “sustainable” lifestyle that they and Tickell advocate so passionately.
Does this film have anything to do with “truth” about energy? Or is it simply a propaganda film for the producers’ and activists’ version of “sustainable lives,” for others, though not for themselves?
It takes but a fleeting moment to realize that it is just like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – leagues removed from truth, and laden with scientific errors, personal biases, and the hypocrisies of affluent partisans who own big houses and fly private jets to events where they tell other people how to live “more sustainably.”
I’m sure “eco-evangelist” Josh Tickell is just “a regular guy,” just as his movie promo says he is. But I would much rather have my country’s electricity future planned by electrical engineers and scientists, and by citizens and politicians who actually live here – rather than by a “regular guy” environmental activist and his self-proclaimed “experts” on energy and “sustainable” lifestyles.
As formerly eco-evangelist Germany has demonstrated, countries cannot afford to have national energy policy moulded by movies like “Fuel” and “An Inconvenient Truth.” Their policies – and their future – need to be based on genuine truth and honest reality.
About the Author: Kelvin Kemm
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.
NY4Gas: Your points are almost as oblique as Chris’ comments. I don’t think you can look at the wind generators as the sole source of power for a specific number of homes. The power flows into the grid and is used with power from all the other sources.
You would make more sense if you would simply point out that, based on the average home in the country, only 1/3 or so of those 45,000 homes could actually be supplied with power by the wind farm.
I think the sporadic power generation by wind generators is nicely augmented by Gas which can be brought on-line very quickly as the wind dies down.
EXACTLY! we see that the wind generators CAN’T be the soul source for the 45,000 homes.
If you read the PR piece at the links, you will see that the wind farmers are making the claim that they will power 45,000 homes.
that was the whole point of the article.
NY4GAS: Let’s be realistic. Despite your protestations, the wind company never meant that they had 40,000 specific houses in mind for which they were going to provide 100% of their energy. Everyone knows that, so you can’t win that argument. They are saying that they are providing the power needs for the equivalent of 40,000 homes. There’s your argument: the numbers don’t work even for a generic group of 40,000 homes! They say that, over the course of a year, they are putting enough power in the grid to power 40,000 homes over the course of the year. They have a math problem, so use that problem (with a definition that everyone understands) to prove them wrong. Don’t talk about instantaneous electric draw because consumers don’t think that way.
you seem to be attempting to assign “intent” to the PR piece. I think they intended to say exactly what they said to fool the public. here’s the quote from article above: “In total, the Twin Ridges Wind Farm has the capacity to generate approximately 140 megawatts of electric power – producing enough electricity to power over 45,000 households each year.”
this avg usage PER HOUSEHOLD is quite clear to me:
“Bill” cites that avg usage is 958kWh/mo per household i assume. That would be equivalent to 1330 watts steadily used for 24 hrs per day, 30 days per month. 800 watts won’t cut it.
And remember that 800 watts was based on 25% load factor which is too generous. After 10 years of experience, Germany has measured 16% when they anticipated 30%. with 16%, the farms would only deliver about 500 watts ON AVERAGE per household.
seems too simple to me
Look at the footprint of the windmills in the picture above. Look at how much land was destoyed to install them. I’d rather have one small drill pad on my property that covers just as much area underground. Those windmills also generate noise when they are spinning. Look at what it does to the precious birds that fly through the blades. Are they that environmental friendly ??
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Unintended” consequences of the windmills include that they are effective bird and bat killing machines! Can you imagine getting whacked by one of those huge blades when you are just flying around minding your own business?
I’m not making this up, it has been even in the LA Times noting Golden Eagles being killed by these projects:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/local/la-me-eagles-20120216
In fact the federal government is intent on extending “permits” for the unintended slaughter of eagles by wind energy projects.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/13/2012-8086/eagle-permits-changes-in-the-regulations-governing-eagle-permitting#p-17
So much for our national birds!
Randall This quote from the from the first article you posted says it all doesn’t it?? What a bunch of idots that were dealing with.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defenders of Wildlife recently sued Kern County to block construction of the proposed North Sky River and Jawbone wind energy projects, which would operate on 13,535 acres of mountainous terrain adjacent to Pine Tree.