East could reach 20 percent wind power by 2024
The eastern power grid could get 20 percent of the energy needed to power homes and businesses from wind by 2024, according to a new study by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study, which was two-and-a-half years in the making, says this would require a big infusion of money to pay for wind projects and transmission infrastruction improvements.
But it would cut carbon emissions greatly, and with geographic diversity in wind farms, could provide a reliable and less expensive energy source.
“Twenty percent wind is an ambitious goal, but this study shows that there are multiple scenarios through which it can be achieved,” David Corbus, project manager for the study, said in a statement. “Whether we’re talking about using land-based wind in the Midwest, offshore wind in the East or any combination of wind power resources, any plausible scenario requires transmission infrastructure upgrades and we need to start planning for that immediately.”
A story by Reuters says billions of dollars would be needed for 22,000 miles of new power lines and land and sea wind towers. And the federal government would have to pay for much of it.
The government already is making some investments, that story says. The Obama administration is dedicating billion to double the amount of electricity produced by wind and other renewable sources by 2012. Officials also are considering a big project in Massachusetts to provide wind energy to 400,000 homes there.
Already, Reuters reports the data from the Energy department that shows amount of U.S. electricity generated by wind was up 29 percent through October of last year compared with the year before. But meeting the 20 percent goal would require 225,000 megawatts of wind generation capacity in the region, 10 times current levels.
The eastern grid extends from the Plains states to the Atlantic states and down to the Gulf of Mexico. So, from here, you're likely to look at a lot of wind mills out on the ocean.
Reuters reports Sen. Byron Dorgan says an energy bill this year could give a boost to the effort by requiring U.S. utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021.
What do you think? Should this be a goal? You okay with looking at wind towers from the beach?
Associated Press file photo of wind towers off shore of Denmark
Comments
Yeah good luck with that. The rick folks on the beach are going to be complaining that they can see the blades...the bird folks are going to say that they kill birds...the oil lobby is going to say it's too expensive...and will raise oil prices somehow. This will never happen. It would be great if it did, but it will never happen.
Posted by: Bill | January 26, 2010 8:15 AM
I think increased use of wind should be one goal among others, and we are definitely in need of transmission grid improvements. As far as looking at wind towers from the beach... they'll be off on the horizon, and I'm usually looking at other things when I go to the beach, anyway.
Posted by: Michael N. | January 26, 2010 9:17 AM
I'd rather look at wind towers at the beach than oil derricks any day. It should be noted that many of the dutch wind towers are several miles off shore, so the aesthetic impact would likely be minimal.
20% seems like a realistic goal for wind power -- at this point, we need to pursue all types of renewable energy.
Posted by: Jake | January 26, 2010 9:34 AM
What's missing in the story is the bigger picture. And all the other studies that point toward the "Bigger Rip Off"? The question of "coal" electricity needs to be applied to these discussions and an overview of the industry as a whole.
In the Midwest alleged "windy" transmission projects like Xcel’s CAPX2020 & ITC Holdings "Green Power Express" are, in the minds of many, complete boondoggle "green wash" projects. Public financial soakings are to follow. All while we see a large player like Xcel, for example, experience dramatic drops in electric demand (SEC K-10 numbers show decline last three years running!). Forgotten here are words like "coal" usage and "Wall Street P&L's". In truth, great rate increases will soon be born by broke ratepayers everywhere as massive new UN-NEEDED transmission projects are built with the idea of shuttling not just "some" wind power toward the eastern seaboard, but also transporting an ever growing amount of coal power.
Expensive transmission projects that will be redundant before completion--extinct by 2024. Chicago alone, for example, has also identified almost 10,000 megawatts of wind power close by. Terrific! But it's not all “clean energy" packages from Midwestern “wind zones”!
For those who research and see the big national picture: it's mostly about Central states becoming a very costly conduit. Ratepayers & growing taxes will be the bank for such high voltage inefficient transport to "high profit" eastern states. Folks in the east will pay throught the nose. The real question: Who pays for these build outs - And who profits? Most of these projects are about greed - not need! Serious health concerns, eminent domain, increased threat of terrorism to the grid and highly questionable need are just a few of the topics & issues which demand further discussion.
Here see the letter from 10 Governors also concerned: http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,516,2263,-1,html.
Posted by: Jonas | January 26, 2010 2:21 PM
To answer David Corbus, NREL and those who wish to "rush" to huge transmission buildout: To suggest all that is needed is the mining of “resource areas”, endless build outs of “old fashioned” 1950’s style transmission to bigger the cities and we’d all sleep better—problem solved--would be almost correct except for one serious problem: LINE LOSS. The existing grid is still horribly inefficient. Shipping wind power, or any power long distance, is mindless.
To NOT rethink how power is made and distributed today would be like saying we should have kept to horses instead of moving to “horseless carriages” years ago. Experts more and more agree, if we are to truly steward America’s resources each region of the country will need to identify what THEY each can produce locally—then use regionally. Solar, wind, biofuel, gas, etc.
The concept currently used of “Central Station” (having one massive energy plant; i.e. nuclear, wind farm or coal burner) then maximize production, to only try to ship that power to far off distant usage points is backwards. Soon, in contrast, we’ll see communities everywhere “powering up” - manufacturing their own power and distributing it locally and regionally. Think thousands of smaller “stations” everywhere. Jobs would flourish and it would be very positive for LOCAL, state & national economies. That does not require huge transmission buildouts however.
No, this argument is not about wind – it’s about market share. Those who are wise enough to see it quickly realize that the “profit barons” are simply rushing to hold our future generations captive to endless profit and control. It’s time for “smart grids” using the existing transmission. Much smaller build outs are required than what's being suggested by outfits like MISO or NERL. The energy paradigm is shifting. In reality it's time for us to partner with the actual “smart” consumer -- allow the ratepayers to in fact participate with the investment. Now there's an idea! But they don't want us to have that discussion....do they? Let's go for wind and solar - but this time let's do it correctly.
Additional research here: http://www.ilsr.org/capx/resources.html
Posted by: Jonas | January 26, 2010 2:23 PM
The NREL study is a mixed bag: the potential for 20% of the Eastern US’s energy needs from wind, but a $175 billion price tag, and no noticeable change in greenhouse gas emissions. A high capacity for wind is great, but only if it’s linked to other energy innovations and carbon reduction.
If you are interested in wind energy or carbon efficiency, go to http://www.greencollareconomy.com for sustainability white papers and the largest b2b green directory on the web.
Posted by: Casey Verdant | January 27, 2010 9:22 PM