Germany leads in wind turbine, U.S. catching up

Very intersesting article. I''m not sure wind power is the best bet, but I think it can certainly be used in greater quantity than we currently do. I could live with one in my back yard. More importantly, your article revived my juices a bit that there are some definate alternatives out there. Alternatives that can not only help reduce our oil consumption, but also create a very lucrative manufacturing climate again. Thanks for the charge to my battery.

John: Good editorial on wind energy. If the Germans can do it, why can’t we? More wind turbines means less reliance on non-renewable energy resources such as coal, oil and natural gas and much cleaner air. We need to go for it and develop more wind farms as rapidly as possible. Sincerely, Glenn Whiteside

It was disappointing to see the confusion of power and energy in an engineering magazine. Also the dates of large windmills are wrong. NASA Lewis Research Center (now NASA Glenn Research Center) was testing large windmills in Sandusky, OH and in Hawaii in the 1970s. Dale Force

Hi John, Thank you for your interesting report in the 5/14/2007 issue of design news on the new religion, The Environment. May I suggest that you take off your religious hat and put on your Engineer’s hat? If you do so, you will be re-endowed with logic and reason. Once you have regained your reason, please consider the following argument. We are air breathers. In particular, we require oxygen. For most of us the production of oxygen (mostly in the ocean by algae) takes place at some distance from where we live. Therefore, our oxygen must be brought to us and our exhaust products (yes, the accursed carbon dioxide) must be transported to somewhere else. Nothing new, right? Well, how does this transportation occur today? Yes, your reason having been restored, leads you to the correct conclusion: the wind! As an engineer you should know that the electrical energy being produced in wind turbines comes from someplace other than magic. In fact, the conversion process is nothing more than the conversion of the kinetic energy of the wind into rotational energy at the generator’s input shaft. The generator does the rest. You should have jumped ahead of me by now, right? Remove the KE from the wind and you no longer are transporting the volume of oxygen to and carbon dioxide from us that you were before. This is air pollution at its finest. Forget the cute little wind “farm” you might have observed existing today. Any wind “farm” capable of replacing significant combustion or nuclear electric power generation is going to have a significant impact upon the distribution of our breathing gases. The fact that this impact has not been studied or quantified (assuming such quantification is within our capability) is a danger sign in and of itself. My recommendation is clear. Any argument for any particular engineering solution to any social problem must present both the benefits of the approach (which you did a good job on) and the cost (which you ignored) using highly quantitative arguments. Thanks for you kind attention to my ramblings, Joe Iaquinto, PE

I think they are great. With the vast area the US has is seems a little ridiculous that we have such issues with the way they look. In fact, I would suggest we let schools paint them so they would look cool spinning. They could have different patterns. In addition we could paint a group of them so they looked like the flag from the air. Then let's put them by airports for all the visitors to see how we are eliminating our dependence on oil Ed

John, I'm with you on wind turbines...Build 'em already. We're fiddling while the oil burns. Crude oil supplies are finite and depleting at an alarming clip. Stan

John, I agree 100% with your article on wind turbines. I’ve been pushing the same buttons for the past year and have thought of looking into the business myself. Coming from a consumer products background and now working in the industrial field of product development the key to getting wind farms built in the USA is marketing… make them cool and they will be built! Get some bottled water marketing guys on it and you wouldn’t be able to build them fast enough. J What do you think about smaller residential wind power? Once again – I think there is a big marketing hole someone could fill. I’d be happy to have a smaller kw sized unit on my lot… if one could be installed for &$7500 and made people *feel* good about helping I bet whole neighborhoods could be set up generating some power for themselves. Might not sound like much but if every triple-decker in Worcester had a small mill on the roof… ??? Missin’ the lobsta here in the Midwest… CHRISTOPHER GRACE Sr. Mechanical Engineer - WPI ITT - Interface Controls 5288 Valley Industrial Blvd. South Shakopee, MN, USA 55379

Dear Mr. Dodge, As a follow-up to my e-mail last night, I attached an article you may find interesting. It is titled: "Engineering Feasibility of CO2 Capture on an Existing US Coal-Fired Power Plant." In that study recovery of CO2 ranged from 91 to 96%. And now that most plants have greatly reduced NOx, SOx, Hg, and fine particles, the stack emissions would be basically water vapor. I also noticed and fixed couple typo's below. (It was getting late..) Best regards, John A. Landis, P.E.

Dear Mr. Dodge, I read your Dodge Report on wind turbines, "The Answer is Blowing in the Wind," in the 05.14.07 Design News magazine. If some people had there way, there would be no more coal-fired power plants in the U.S. - just row after row of wind turbines. Not only would that be impractical since we are very dependent on our power 24/7/365, has anyone really considered how many wind turbines that would entail? According to the EIA, coal accounted for 162,902,000 MWH of electricity in Feb 2007. February had 672 hrs, so the average power rate was 242,414MW. A turbine running at its optimal point may get 1.5 MW, but that's only for a giant efficient turbine with a strong, steady wind blowing. And the goal is to take as much energy out of the wind as possible, up to the Betz limit of 59%. Right now the turbines are only about 30% efficient? And then you have to factor in transmission and mechanical efficiency losses. So if each turbine is 150ft in diameter, we'll have turbines stretching from coast to coast in multiple rows, slowing down the wind. We're talking hundreds of thousands of turbines. I have yet to read a wind turbine article that addresses the loss of convective cooling and disruption of wind patterns that could occur if they are used as a means to completely replace coal-fired units. Ideally you propose we stop the wind, right? Wouldn't that lead to global warming also? There are alternatives. CO2 capture/sequestration is being seriously considered. Power companies are finding more efficient ways to burn coal. A single coal-fired power plant gives you 2,000 -3,000MW of 24/7/365 power. To do that with wind turbines would require a whole mountain range of turbines...or the entire shoreline of Lake Erie. The answer, is not blowin' in the wind. The answer is conservation. We don't need 3,500sqft houses and 3-car garages for our SUVs. Gas was $4/gallon in Germany 15 yrs ago. We don't know high gas prices. (o.k. I digress a little..) The answer is fusion but that's years off. The answer is nuclear, geothermal, and coal. Wind can be a small supplement but it's not the answer. And don't take away my sea breeze!

I read in The Economist recently that the German BWE target of 25% has generated some unintended consequences elsewhere. The large volume of purchases in Germany has driven up prices of wind turbines and associated equipment. This has helped GE and other manufacturers to cover development costs, by the graciousness of German taxpayers. The downside is that there are many parts of the world where wind power should be more economical than in Germany. The increase in equipment prices has caused previously feasible projects to be put on hold so that the BWE can meet their target! I'd like to know if anyone can independently confirm this story.

I agree, we all want cheaper energy but some don''t want to have it near by. I myself don''t mind the looks of the wind generators, tall and magestic. If I could I would have one in my back yard. I have also started using the floresent bulbs and see a savings in electric cost and in not having to replace them often. I say build away.

Although you didn't come right out and say it, you hit the nail square on the head. We all want the benefits of cheap utilities, but NOT IN MY BACK YARD. I feel this way, you can put an atomic reactor in my cellar if it is safe and saves money. Manufacturing Engineering Sentry Group 900 Linden Avenue Rochester, New York &>

Hello John Dodge. Concerning Wind turbines. Wind turbines is a great idear. Here in Denmark many of the first generation mills came up by local people joining forces to ask permissions to put up windturbines, they made small buissenes, that found the windy places, bought a couple of windmills, had them installed, and run them for Years. The local banks normally suppported the small set ups by cheap loans to the participants, and also the bank sometimes provided the system that collected the ingoing money in the set up periode , and since then the distribution of the outcome. I my selv joined one of these small very private systems, and you know what ! Its been the best investment I have ever gone into. Besides that it was very funny to take part in that system. Spread the idea, its really worth doing. You get to know some more people, you support the environment , and you earn more money. Best regards B.sc. Anders Stigaard Sørensen Research and development Cimbria Manufacturing A/S Fårtoftevej 22 DK 7700 Thisted Denmark Direkt Phone +45 9617 9151 Nearest Fax +45 9617 9159 Email.: ass@cimbria.com