Some of the numbers given by Eric suggest that wind might compete favorably with nuclear as a base load, rather than peak load, which is more usual. Grid-based systems gain some advantage from the spread of sites, but big and small wind turbines are still ultimately dependant on weather, which remain highly variable, requiring some storage considerations for load leveling. There are many interesting ongoing developments in storage, from pumped hydro to compressed air, and this is an active edge for exploration.

But wind should not be looked at in isolation, rather it is one piece of the solution (to how you have a “powered descent”). I agree that community scale is optimal, and for some well-situated communities that might even mean the biggest turbines Vestas makes (4.5 MW). For others it might be an offshore tidal energy park, or, like Roosevelt Island NY, a small farm of submarine river current turbines. Tides are more predictable than winds, but it is not either-or. It is a mix of all. When the sun is not shining, the wind may be blowing and the sea chop up. It all works together.

They do insist the additional cost is small (ignoring the cost of adding the wind plant itself), but they do not appear to address the effect on “conventional” fuels. i.e., how much more inefficiently other sources have to be used, thus cancelling some, maybe most, of the possible benefit of having wind power on the system.

And though they point out that wind is a source of energy rather than capacity (meaning planners have to build other plants as if the wind plants aren’t there, since a third of the time they won’t be producing energy at all and another third of the time they will be producing at a rate well below their annual average), they also assert that the “capacity value of wind generation is typically up to 40% of nameplate rating.” That is remarkable indeed, since it exceeds the average capacity factor of 27% reported to the Energy Information Agency of the Dept. of Energy.

Most studies appear to assign a capacity value (or credit, or effective capacity) of about a third of the capacity factor, which is to say about 1/12 of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. Bigger turbines have not made that any better, since the generators are correspondingly bigger, too. The low level of effective output is highly variable, with no correlation with demand. Thus, as “penetration” approaches the capacity of the system to balance the extra load fluctuation, the capacity credit of wind approaches zero, as studies in Ireland and Germany have determined.

Regards,
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://www.ifnotwind.org

Every RE technology has an appropriate scale. Small wind turbines are not the most appropriate scale for that technology. The right scale for wind energy is the community level.

As for “nerdy solutions,” however, industrial-scale wind power is right up there. It represents more dependence on a vast grid and isn’t even a good source of energy, as anyone who lives with a small one off grid knows. And its own negative impacts are not insignificant.

I seem to recall my general theme was eutopia with an “e,” about Eutopia (a good place) vs Utopia (nowhere).While not quite the same, you might have a look at: http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbp18.html and http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbp4.html.

Anywhere we can find that inspiring talk by Bates in 1995?

Cheers,
Andy

What he doesn’t realise is that nuclear energy merely displaces CO2 emissions; from the power station to the mine.

You may be able to store the waste in a small bunker. The tailings from Uranium mines is a different order of magnitude.

When the ore ratios drop below 1 gram in 5000 (in hard rock), as much enregy is required to make the fuel as is released by the reactor. We are not too far off such “low grade” ores, and this point alone is all that’s needed to disprove Lovelock’s idea of nuclear energy being a significant CO2-reduction tool.

Albert Bates articulates why nuclear energy is a bad solution for our energy needs. Source: Transition Culture ? Lovelock’s Folly – A Book Review by Albert Bates.Economists would point to the serious lack of financial justification for nuclear energy…

At the end of the day this is another case of a bad distraction from getting on with the practical long twilight struggle towards a more sustainable symbiosis with the eco-system.