im doing a project for school and i am trying to figure out the most efficient but least expensive way to power the US on alternative energy. Please i need to know the cost and how many wind turbines it would take!
More Pages:
- Solar Turbines: What Are The Drawbacks To Using Wind Turbines Or Solar Panels For Providing All Power To A Home? (4/24/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Wind Turbines? (5/21/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Installing Solar Panels And Wind Turbines At Home? (11/8/2011)
- Solar Turbines: How Many Wind Turbines Would You Need To Power A City? (8/26/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Would It Be Possible To Use Kevlar To Make Wind Turbines For Renewable Energy? (9/17/2011)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Wind turbines are not the cheapest nor most efficient way to power the US. Wind has a very low energy density and the turbines take up large amounts of space. They have to be placed where wind speed is within a certain range and must be fairly consistent.
I know this was short but there is a lot of info out there that you can research.
Hope this helped.
You are doing a project of which you do not know the first thing? Should have chosen something different.
1. Find out the maximum power load of the US system, in gigawatt. Should be around 400.
2. Find out what is the largest wind turbine you can install. Divide by 1., which will give you the turbines which should run all the time.
3. Multiply by the “availabililty factor”, i.e., how much wind to expect, for how long and where. You have to translate wind power into energy, which is wind_power x time_running.
To cover all contingencies, you might need ten times more installed capacity, in gigawatt, than point 1.
.
Hey Lamb, you’re not stupid, this is a good question. If you just want the wind numbers, they look something like this. Mariskalen is about right on the US load, last data I could find was 2005, that year we used 3,741,135,000 MW hours, which translated to average load, comes out just over 400 gigawatts, about 427 GW to be exact. I think the largest wind turbines being engineered today might reach to 5 MW, or .005 GW. So to accomplish what you are suggesting would take over 90,000 of these large units. To be short, we aren’t going to do that, but there are more reasons than just the number of turbines we need. There is plenty of wind resource, actually we could power the entire country on just the wind in North and South Dakota, but the entire surface of both states would be taken up by turbines.
First of all it works better to spread them out, this vastly reduces the size and complexity of the grid we need to move all the power around. It also solves the problem of what to do in a calm day in North Dakota. Someplace the wind is blowing, so if we plant some in each state, we will always have some wind power. Secondly, Bravo makes a good point that wind power is very low density. What that means is it takes a 400 foot tall tower and a 500 foot diameter blade to make the same 5 MW as a hydro power plant that might fit in a small house. Hydro power is high density, and a much cheaper way to make power. Problem is, we have already built dams in all the good spots, like Lake Mead and the Columbia River Gorge. Lastly, one of the reasons we have gotten into this energy predicament is through overreliance on very few sources, like oil and coal. The best resource to power the country is a diverse one. I’m a big supporter of renewable energy, like wind and solar, but I would be quite happy to see wind get maybe 10 or 20 % of our grid power. I’d like solar to get another 10, hyrdro to hold the piece it has now, and there would still be room for some coal and nuclear. This way, if there is any problem with one source, the others can pick up the load, and by using all available sources, we can place the ones that work best in each location. Hydro is best in the West and Northwest. Coal plants could be located next to the mines. Solar in the Southwest, and wind on higher grounds, where the wind blows. This is the cheapest and most efficient way to power our globe.
We live in a home that is powered by the wind and sun, has been for 11 years now. We’ve learned a great deal about renewable energy along the way, made some mistakes, and have a pretty good handle on what works where, and what doesn’t. Powering a home in Seattle with solar would be like replacing your family car with a fleet of bicycles. It would work great for getting to school, but that trip back from the lumber yard would be a killer. Seattle, with all its jungle like foliage, has great biomass potential, something else that we’ve barely scraped the surface on, but it would be a waste to export that technology to the desert southwest.
One of the most promising ideas to come along lately is a project the Germans are doing in the Sahara Desert. Using solar concentrators, they are going to heat oil to several hundred degrees, then store the heated oil in huge insulated tanks. When electricity is needed, a pump forces water through a coil in the tank, which heats up the water and makes steam. The steam is used to turn a turbine generator that makes electricity. The really great thing about it is that with all that hot oil, it will work all night too. So now we have access to solar power at night, pretty slick. Google the phrase, “North African Solar Project,” to check it out. I’ll list some other sources below for you to research as well. Good luck Lamb, and take care, Rudydoo