Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: U.S. wind resources capable of producing more than 9 times current consumption

  1. #1

    U.S. wind resources capable of producing more than 9 times current consumption

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s most recent assessment shows that U.S. wind resources are larger than previously estimated, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

    A key finding of the new assessment shows that onshore U.S. wind resources could generate nearly 37,000,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually, more than nine times current total U.S. electricity consumption. The previous national government survey, conducted by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, estimated U.S. wind potential at 10,777,000 GWh.

    This means that the potential capacity of America’s onshore wind resource is over 10,000 gigawatts (GW) and the U.S. is barely tapping into this resource with a current wind installed capacity of 35 GW in the U.S., according to AWEA.
    SOURCE

    More than 9 times the current annual consumption from wind
    power alone. That doesn't include solar, geothermal, nuclear,
    or natural gas. This country could be 100% energy independent.
    Imagine how many jobs that could create.

  2. #2
    I don't care how ugly wind turbines are, and birds will learn to fly
    around them.

  3. #3
    buck,
    i have been trying to buy one for my home for about 5 years.$15,000 will buy one that knocks $50 off your electric bill each month.they have an expected life span of 20 years.with that math america will be broke long before we are independent.
    i hope the big industrial models have a better payback rate.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    buck,
    i have been trying to buy one for my home for about 5 years.$15,000 will buy one that knocks $50 off your electric bill each month.they have an expected life span of 20 years.with that math america will be broke long before we are independent.
    i hope the big industrial models have a better payback rate.
    I'm sorry to hear that they cost so much. Maybe you should get
    your neighbors in on it and receive a volume discount.

    This article is talking about those huge turbines. Not turbines for
    someone's backyard. So I don't know how much they cost per
    unit or their lifespan.

    I think it would be a great investment and would definitely pay off.
    Buying foreign oil certainly won't help us keep from going broke.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    buck,
    i have been trying to buy one for my home for about 5 years.$15,000 will buy one that knocks $50 off your electric bill each month.they have an expected life span of 20 years.with that math america will be broke long before we are independent.
    i hope the big industrial models have a better payback rate.
    Jim,

    At an industry level, many groups have now reported data that suggests that wind energy costs less than new coal plants and new nuclear energy (Source). So, this would suggest that we should invest in wind energy as oppose to new coal or nuclear plants.

    I took the liberty of calculating the costs of doing nothing versus the purchasing a $15,000 wind generator that generates $50 worth of electricity per month in 2010. I added a 5% inflation rate for the electricity costs but I also added a generous $300/year maintenance cost for the generator.

    The attached spreadsheet summarizes your costs and savings. You will have paid for your wind mill by 2026. All energy generated from the wind generator after 2026 would be gravy. At the end of 20 years (2030), if you did nothing, you will have paid $21,432 of electrical costs. If you installed the device, you would have saved yourself $6,132 of that cost.

    Think of it in another way. If you put $15,000 into a savings bond generating 3% interest per year, you would have $27,092 (including your original $15,000) at the end of 20 years. After subtracting your electricity bill, you would have $5,660 in your pocket. But, if you had invested in a windmill device, you would have $6123. In other words, it is a better deal than a 3% U.S. Savings bond.

    If the windmill has a lifetime of 30 years (instead of 20 years), the savings would be even greater. The cumulative cost of 30 years of electrical bills (for an amount of electricity that is $600 in 2010) is $42,456. If you invested $15,000 into a device that generated that amount of electricity in 2010, you savings over 30 years is $27,156.

    If you had put $15,000 into a 3% 30-year U.S. Savings Bond, you would have only $36,409, not enough to pay the $42,456 cost of the electricity bills. In fact, you would have to fork out an extra $6,048 compared to having $27,156 in your pocket at the end of 30 years, not to mention the interest that you would have gotten from those savings. It is a good investment, don't you think?

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 02-28-2010 at 06:57 PM.

  6. #6
    dr.young,
    the only part of my post you missed was the 20 year life expectancy of the turbine.that is with regular maintenance.but thank you very much for working the numbers up.it is not as cut and dry as i am making it sound though,the steel structure that you mount the windmill to has a 30 to 40 year expectancy and is 1/3 of the cost,but if you mount a new windmill after 20 years and the tower fails 10 years later you could be buying a new windmill prematurely.also if i lived in new jersey the state government would pay for a bigger chunk of the initial cost.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    It is a good investment, don't you think?

    Wise.
    Recalculate it at $10,500 for the initial cost of the unit because
    the government offers a 30% tax credit with no upper limit.

    SOURCE

  8. #8
    buck,i appreciate your help but thats already in the equation.it would make a lot of sense if you had the right location with better state assistance.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    buck,i appreciate your help but thats already in the equation.it would make a lot of sense if you had the right location with better state assistance.
    I think it's great that you've considered a wind turbine. I live in
    AZ and have considered putting a solar panel system on my
    house. A wind turbine would do well in my area, too.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jim sampson View Post
    dr.young,
    the only part of my post you missed was the 20 year life expectancy of the turbine.that is with regular maintenance.but thank you very much for working the numbers up.it is not as cut and dry as i am making it sound though,the steel structure that you mount the windmill to has a 30 to 40 year expectancy and is 1/3 of the cost,but if you mount a new windmill after 20 years and the tower fails 10 years later you could be buying a new windmill prematurely.also if i lived in new jersey the state government would pay for a bigger chunk of the initial cost.
    Jim, I didn't miss the 20-year part. Because the spreadsheet starts at 2010, the breakeven year 2026 is at 16 years. However, it does illustrate how close the costs are. If the costs of the turbine plus tower is $20,000, the breakeven point is 2030 or 20 years. In that case, the only dividend that you will get is saving the environment of the earth and not your pocketbook. You should move to New Jersey .

    Wise.

Similar Threads

  1. Wind Turbine in High Wind Conditions
    By Mike C in forum Science, Medicine, & Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 09:37 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 08:28 PM
  3. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 07-21-2007, 01:34 PM
  4. Wind, Wind and More Wind Coming
    By Spadfan in forum Life
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-05-2006, 01:54 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-25-2002, 07:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •