I wrote:
Here is a 5 MW, 120 meter tall unit that looks larger than the NASA unit:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=21962
It probably weighs less than the NASA monster. Note that it has a
"helicopter platform" on the nacelle. (Not a landing pad, exactly.)
The AWEA reports that in the US the industry will probably install
3000 MW (nameplate) of new wind turbine capacity in 2006. Adjusting
for actual output, this is roughly equivalent to one average US
nuclear power plant. The cost will be $3 billion, which is a lot less
than an average new nuclear plant. See:
http://www.awea.org/news/First_Quarter_Market_Report_Energy_On_Track_050306.html
The US has about 100 nuclear plants. So, assuming we maintain and
rebuild the nukes, and we keep adding wind capacity at this rate, in
about 100 years we will derive 20% of our electricity from nuclear
power and 20% from wind. I think we should do it a lot sooner than
100 years! I would increase production by a factor of 5, and reach
this goal in 20 years.
After you reach ~20% capacity from wind, you start to encounter
problems with load balancing and energy storage. The cost of
modifying the grid and buying additional equipment shoots up. Perhaps
in 20 years advanced batteries and other solutions will be available,
but for now I think we should plan for 20% wind capacity and leave it at that.
- Jed
