Since the early 2000s, wind power has been a substantial fraction of new electricity capacity in the US. In 2020 wind power was 42% of new electricity generation capacity, and in 2021 it was 32%. This is also true around the world. In Europe, wind power has been the first or second largest source of new generation capacity since at least 2015:
When I think of wind power, I remember the 1970s human powered flight challenges. Human powered aircraft had to be light, large, strong, flexible and make optimal use of limited power. The 1970s was the start of a materials revolution. There were all those lightweight fabrics and metals, low friction plastic bearings, power permanent magnets and sophisticated computer systems to design and control it all.
When I was in college, my class was asked why the ancient Romans couldn't build integrated circuits. They are largely made of silicon, something the Romans used all the time in the form of silicon dioxide in stone and sand. We wound up developing a technology tree with existing technology depending on earlier technologies and it was a pretty deep tree between 1970s era integrated circuits and anything the Romans could make.
Just as turbines had to wait for the materials and machining revolutions of the 19th century to play out, cost effective wind power had to rely on dozens, even hundreds of technologies. Looking at the computational technology alone, my personal viewpoint, is revealing. For a long time, even back in the 1990s, simulating the air flow around a helicopter blade was considered a distant reach for super-computing. Now it's standard practice. The finite element method for the support structures was being widely adopted, for example, to minimize materials in aluminum soda cans, but that wasn't the kind of thing one could do on a PC.
Then you have to deal with the compact generator, the blade control, and the ability to produce synchronized AC power. That meant new magnetic materials, new approaches to generator design, solid state power circuitry and what I can only call improved wind science. All told, it's been a pretty amazing trip.
We waited so long because there were no subsidies for wind power. We would still be waiting without them. A power source that is so subjected to the whims of weather that is unreliable would never be adopted on it's own merits. There's a reason windmills died out regardless of how charming they looked.
Nice job, Brian! I worked at investment companies for decades, including analysis of renewable energy. You covered it all! And very clearly! But investment returns are important. The Dems give green energy subsidies, and the GOP gives fossil fuels subsidies. Yes, when the dust settles, humans often choose the lowest cost. Let's find a way to add the environmental cost to that equation...something that will persuade both sides. But again. Well done!
You should also consider small wind companies like www.flowgen.com LCOE at around 12 cents per kWh and installation in less than 3 months. The efficiency of a wind turbine is over 50%, and due to the low height in most EU countries, only construction permits are needed. Using the current building structure to get height with 160 kilos of weight per wind turbine can be placed on most roofs of manufacturing facilities. A single wind turbine at 7 m/s produces around 20 000 kWh.
Really glad to see you write about wind power, I was just about to ask if you'd looked into that industry since its capable of constructing huge complicated structures for remarkably little money. I wonder if there are lessons to be learnt there for the rest of the construction industry.
Great Article. What I do not really understand is why governments spend billions in subsidizing wind and solar if those technologies are so cheap? Thanks!
When I think of wind power, I remember the 1970s human powered flight challenges. Human powered aircraft had to be light, large, strong, flexible and make optimal use of limited power. The 1970s was the start of a materials revolution. There were all those lightweight fabrics and metals, low friction plastic bearings, power permanent magnets and sophisticated computer systems to design and control it all.
When I was in college, my class was asked why the ancient Romans couldn't build integrated circuits. They are largely made of silicon, something the Romans used all the time in the form of silicon dioxide in stone and sand. We wound up developing a technology tree with existing technology depending on earlier technologies and it was a pretty deep tree between 1970s era integrated circuits and anything the Romans could make.
Just as turbines had to wait for the materials and machining revolutions of the 19th century to play out, cost effective wind power had to rely on dozens, even hundreds of technologies. Looking at the computational technology alone, my personal viewpoint, is revealing. For a long time, even back in the 1990s, simulating the air flow around a helicopter blade was considered a distant reach for super-computing. Now it's standard practice. The finite element method for the support structures was being widely adopted, for example, to minimize materials in aluminum soda cans, but that wasn't the kind of thing one could do on a PC.
Then you have to deal with the compact generator, the blade control, and the ability to produce synchronized AC power. That meant new magnetic materials, new approaches to generator design, solid state power circuitry and what I can only call improved wind science. All told, it's been a pretty amazing trip.
Interesting that wind power is so cheap, but electricity so expensive in Europe and renewables-heavy US states.
We waited so long because there were no subsidies for wind power. We would still be waiting without them. A power source that is so subjected to the whims of weather that is unreliable would never be adopted on it's own merits. There's a reason windmills died out regardless of how charming they looked.
Why were grid hookups for farms made conditional on destroying existing wind turbines?
Totally fascinating!
Nice job, Brian! I worked at investment companies for decades, including analysis of renewable energy. You covered it all! And very clearly! But investment returns are important. The Dems give green energy subsidies, and the GOP gives fossil fuels subsidies. Yes, when the dust settles, humans often choose the lowest cost. Let's find a way to add the environmental cost to that equation...something that will persuade both sides. But again. Well done!
One interesting piece about wind is the sheer amount of it stuck in permitting hell: https://seliger.com/2022/09/01/permitting-is-the-big-barrier-to-wind-energy-right-now-beyond-batteries-and-fundamental-research/.
We're building a lot of it—but should be doing even more.
You should also consider small wind companies like www.flowgen.com LCOE at around 12 cents per kWh and installation in less than 3 months. The efficiency of a wind turbine is over 50%, and due to the low height in most EU countries, only construction permits are needed. Using the current building structure to get height with 160 kilos of weight per wind turbine can be placed on most roofs of manufacturing facilities. A single wind turbine at 7 m/s produces around 20 000 kWh.
Great summary. Many thanks!!
Really glad to see you write about wind power, I was just about to ask if you'd looked into that industry since its capable of constructing huge complicated structures for remarkably little money. I wonder if there are lessons to be learnt there for the rest of the construction industry.
Great Article. What I do not really understand is why governments spend billions in subsidizing wind and solar if those technologies are so cheap? Thanks!