The reality of wind turbines in California – video

As many know, I was on a road trip for two weeks. On my return into California, I traveled a road I had done many many times – California Highway 58 through Tehachapi pass, one of the windiest areas of California, and loaded with wind turbines like you see in this photo from www.wind-works.org which seems to be taken during 2003. All the turbines seem to be spinning.

But, the reality I encounter when I drive through there is much different than what you see in the photo above. I often drive this road, but always wished I had a video camera with me to show how many turbines are inoperable since this doesn’t show up well in still photos. Unless you have a slow shutter speed to show “blade blur”, they all look inoperable.

But this day was different. I did have a video camera with me. Plus, the day I drove through, Tuesday, March 15th, 2011 was near perfect for wind turbines. There was a front coming in, and strong winds ahead of it.

Here’s the wind data from the ASOS at the Tehachapi airport during the time I drove through:

The wind data displayed above are measured at 1000′ lower elevation than the wind turbines on the top of the ridge, where the wind velocity will be higher.

And here is what I saw of the wind turbines along the ridge top, there were quite a few inoperable on this windy day. This video was taken right about 11AM PST:

There were many more inoperable turbines, but could not be filmed from a safe vantage point along the highway. This video was take from the semi-truck staging area near the agricultural inspection station.

My best guess from the video and others I saw that I could not film is that about one in four turbines were not operating.

The problem is maintenance. The location, while perfect for wind, is treacherous for work and support equipment. Even on a flat terrain, like in Texas (shown below) where I photographed these turbines, doing maintenance on gearboxes and generators high up on a post isn’t easy.

Imagine the complications on a mountain ridge for maintenance.

On the wind-works.org website “tour” section, they lament the condition of the Zond (Enron) wind power sites:

Wind Plant Maintenance Items to Note

Throughout the Tehachapi-Mojave area look for turbines without nose cones, turbines without nacelles (blown off and not replaced), oil leaking from blade-pitch seals, oil leaking from gearboxes, road cuts in steep terrain, erosion gullies, non-operating turbines, and “bone piles” of junk parts. One Zond bone pile of abandoned fiberglass blades is visible on the east side of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Rd. near Oak Creek Pass. (Kern County doesn’t permit on-ground disposal of fiberglass.) While touring wind farm sites look for blowing trash and litter (plastic bags, soft-drink cups, bottles, electrical connectors, scrap bits of metal, and so on). These all reflect management’s attention to maintenance and general housekeeping. At the better sites, you won’t see any of this.

Even on the valley floor, the smaller four turbines just west of the Tehachapi airport that greet visitors who drive in from Bakersfield had a problem, and these are on flat ground and accessible:

In Palm Springs, CA, another windy place, they have similar problems:

=============================================================

Florida’s broken windmills:  A California problem

Broken

Blades

The permit allowing windmills to go in didn’t say they could sit there broken. Palm Springs is getting tough. If windmills are going to exist in the city they must be operational. A city that has welcomed windmills since it was first approached about them in the early 1980’s is finding that many of those windmills are no longer working and it wants them fixed. The question is who’s responsible for fixing them? Florida Power and Light (FPL), the owner of the inoperable windmills, was allowed to install and operate local windmill farms under a conditional use permit (CUP) stipulating if the windmill does not run for six months, it’s declared a public nuisance and without a hearing, must be abated.

================================================================

Here’s a video showing the inside operations of a wind power facility in Washington State

And, the lack of maintenance problem is not just in California. In 2001, I visited Kamoa wind farm near Southpoint in the big island of Hawaii. The wind is so strong there, trees grow horizontal like this one:

As much as I was surprised by the horizontal trees, I was equally surprised to see dead wind turbines there. It was my first experience with a wind farm.

From this American Thinker article “Wind energy’s ghosts”:

=========================================================

Kamaoa Windmills 006 crop.jpg
Kamaoa Wind Farm, Hawaii. (image)

Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy.

Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming. By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company.

===========================================================

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/5132c3b0-37d9-4e23-83fd-68ca51729f7b.jpg

Image from Waymarking.com

Again, like in California, Hawaii’s turbine problem is lack of maintenance.

But isn’t that the way it always has been with windmills?

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: It appears Idaho is getting set for putting a wind power moratorium in place:

KIFI logo

State Lawmakers Look At Wind Energy Moratorium

story image

Mar 18, 2011 6:16 p.m.

BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Idaho — Construction of wind turbines may be coming to a halt in Idaho.

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would prevent the construction of any new wind farm for the next two years.

Over the last year, dozens of new wind turbines have gone up on east bench just outside Idaho Falls, but many of the neighbors and their legislators want to put a temporary end to new construction.

When the legislature adopted the 2007 energy plan, it did not envision so many energy companies wanting to build wind farms in Idaho.

Bill sponsor Erik Simpson said he and both his Republican and Democratic colleagues agree they need to take a look at the long-term consequences.

“Local governments need some direction as to what should be included in some of their ordinances, recognizing some of the impacts that are out there on wind, and we need to find out what those impacts might be,” said State Affairs Committee member Tom Loertcher.

To conduct the study, the bill proposes a two-year moratorium on wind farm construction.

“It may be a problem mostly in eastern Idaho now, but it’s likely to be a problem in (other legislators’) communities as well unless we take this two year pause and study this a little more in depth,” Simpson said.

Wind power is not the cheapest way to produce energy, and lawmakers want to make sure their constituents don’t have to pay top rate.

“Utility rate payers are paying more for this unreliable intermittent energy source,” Simpson said.

Many are also concerned about the environment.

“A lot of these projects are going up in pristine wildlife areas,” Simpson said.

But not everyone agrees. Some local people like Bonneville County farmer Tory Talbot want to continue to see more turbines.

“The moratorium will basically limit businesses wanting to come into Idaho. Southeastern Idaho and southern Idaho has a huge wind energy potential,” Talbot said.

The State Affairs Committee plans to continue the debate on Monday when they hear from utility companies and energy companies.

They will then vote on whether they should move the bill to the House floor.

If the bill passes, any project already approved would be allowed to move forward.

==================================================================

UPDATE2: The maintenance problem also extends to Germany:

From: jcwinnie.biz

HAWT Destruction from Gearbox Failure

Gearboxes have been failing in wind turbines since the early 1990s. Barely a turbine make has escaped. The problem reached epidemic proportions with a massive series failure of gearboxes in NEG Micon machines. At the time, the NEG Micon brand was the most sold wind turbine in the world. The disaster brought the company to its knees ; It was taken over by Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, which still is challenged by gearbox and rotor failures.

As previously noted, a large number of gearboxes have had to be replaced “in large numbers.” Der Spiegel reports that the German Insurance Association is none too happy…

“In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects,” a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to dangerous cracks and fractures… The frail turbines coming off the assembly lines at some manufacturers threaten to damage an industry that for years has been hailed as a wild success.

At Spiegel Online, Simone Kaiser and Michael relay a concern about installed wind turbines:

After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
202 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 21, 2011 5:50 pm

I’d love to see an analysis of maintenance costs vs. contribution to actual energy that is free and clear of the debt TO those costs.
I always tell everyone, somewhat tongue-in-cheekily: that it costs more–in barrels of 3-in-one oil–to keep them babies spinning, than they could ever produce in energy.

March 21, 2011 7:45 pm

Just a note to say that Andrea Rossi will be a guest on the US radio show Coast to Coast AM on Wednesday March 23.

Brian H
March 22, 2011 4:37 am

I’ve got it! A new design to make maintenance easier and cheaper.
Make the towers telescoping. To do maintenance, first the blade and rotor are rotated upwards, then the tower is collapsed down to about 1/10 its full height, and then re-extended etc. when the work is done.
Simples!

J.Hansford
March 22, 2011 8:24 am

10 and 20 ton pieces of equipment!!!….. So not only do they need windy spots away from people….. They need heavy truck and crane access….. No wonder it all costs a fortune with the damn things falling into disrepair and disuse!

Dave Springer
March 22, 2011 8:54 am

George E. Smith says:
March 21, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“I have mentioned that these things have a built in shake themselves to pieces vibration mode due to the vertical wind shear.”
Like a helicopter. One of my fixed wing flight instructors was also a rotary wing instructor. He told me helicopters are basically buckets of bolts trying to rattle themselves apart. Very high maintenance and for the same reasons as wind turbines – the wing loading changes rapidly in a non-linear manner from wing to wing at the same time upsetting the balanced rotation. That combined with the need for lowest practical mass of the wing and it’s a recipe for stress fractures in the wing components and high wear rate on bearings and gear trains.

Dave Springer
March 22, 2011 9:06 am

George E. Smith says:
March 21, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“I have mentioned that these things have a built in shake themselves to pieces vibration mode due to the vertical wind shear.”
Nuclear reactors have a different but no less nightmarish maintenance problem. High neutrino flux embrittles steel which in turn makes every microscopic defect in the steel a potential catastrophic failure point. Adding insult to injury is that you have to cool the reactor down for a week before even robots can get close enough to it to inspect the steel and it practically never cools down enough for humans to get close enough to it to perform the inspections. I think I’d prefer being a windmill technician in the U.S. versus a Nigerian uranium miner too. No one ever seems to talk about the fuel mining and refining health hazards of nuclear power generation – those fuel rods don’t grow on trees like bananas. Radiation exposure risks mostly happen at the mines and uranium refineries not in the generating plants.

Justa Joe
March 22, 2011 9:25 am

At least with Nuclear you actually get some electrical generation out of it.

Dave Springer
March 22, 2011 9:31 am

George E. Smith says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:50 am

Good advice you should follow too.
So you design your windmill for best efficiency at some wind speed; say 10 mph just to have a number. If the wind speed drops to five mph, you just lost 87.5% of your entire plant capacity. So clearly 12.5% of desing working capacity is not a useful condition. You are better off to shut them all down to save wear and tear on the gear boxes.
And if the wind speed went up by five to 15mph, the loads on the fan and tower would be 2.25 times higher. So just to handle a 3:1 wind speed range, you have to design for peak stresses that are more than double the design operating conditions. You will get more than three times the power at the 15 mph wind.
And when you shut them down in high winds, you better turn them perpendicular to the wind; because the wind thrust which puts an axial load on the bearings, will go up much faster with the blade not turning. So even with the prop feathered, you can’t leave the fan face on to the wind.
And it is sails that get furled in high winds; not propellors.

Good advice for you to follow is to read up on something before bloviating.
Here’s a good place to start on this particular topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Pitch_control
Sustained wind speed isn’t a problem for either efficiency or stress loading with variable pitch blades. Higher performance and/or higher efficiency aircraft have been using variable pitch props like unto forever. The problem is gusting winds where the pitch control can’t react fast enough. And of course variable pitch adds cost, complexity, additional failure points, and additional maintenance concerns. So like most things in life and engineering there are tradeoffs involved.

Dave Springer
March 22, 2011 10:03 am

Smith
By the way, a feathered prop isn’t one that has stopped rotating. A feathered prop is one that is pitched such that the blade’s edge is directly into the wind reducing drag to a minimum. Feathering and unfeathering is also called furling and the term is used with wings as well as with sails. An unfurled stopped blade facing into the wind has incredibly high drag. In twin engine aircraft with widely separated wing-mounted engines they become unflyable due to the difference in drag if one prop is stopped and unfurled. The vertical stabilizer and rudder become inadequate to keep the tail aligned with the nose and an unrecoverable flat spin develops rather quickly.
Absent variable pitch so the prop can be furled possible alternatives are compression releases for the engine and transmission releases that allow the prop to spin free. I’ve never heard of those alternative mechanisms actually used on any modern aircraft but I’m sure some enterprising individual looking for a cheaper solution in the long storied saga of aviation thought to employ those instead of furlable blades.
A furled wind turbine is pointed directly into the wind. It’s only wind turbines without variable pitch blades that must be turned perpendicular to the wind to minimize drag when wind speed exceeds design threshold.

Ralph
March 22, 2011 10:28 am

Here are some more dangerous windelecs…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_blnN-QHR9C4/TJw65jcXDvI/AAAAAAAAApE/MSNEU4-OPM0/s1600/434004b66ee8ae81a169af47f6d24dc9-jpg400x400.jpg
http://www.abd.org.uk/images/photos/fallen_wind_turbine.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/u14tBwO5QVQ/0.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/02/article-1232540-076E050E000005DC-775_634x427.jpg
http://www.noturbinesin.saddleworth.net/Pictures/FallenTurbine1.jpg
http://ruralgrubby.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/windmill-collapse.jpg
http://www.windbyte.co.uk/ims/safety/noble_turbine.jpg
http://windconcernsontario.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/searsburg-vt-sept-2008-collapse.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/167877_10150383324780214_518940213_17120736_1293224_n1.jpg?w=640&h=480
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/jan2008/7/2/6D6EE720-EAC5-DA69-46CDFD94DC123460.jpg
http://www.windcows.com/files/100_0355_op_399x600.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4ify7vDXrDs/THE6GVeA81I/AAAAAAAAGcU/XxZ1qgqQVxE/s1600/wind-shock-2.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r78OS9t_bOY/SdPw4HJfGYI/AAAAAAAAALY/a-S4TBN5d6s/s400/5d81cf0b86232ee22722444f0d7d12c9-jpg400x400++wind+fire.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/u14tBwO5QVQ/0.jpg
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/german_turbine_fire-der_spiegel.jpg
http://www.changecollege.org.uk/img/Cape_Wind_Turbine_Burning.jpg
http://www.backcountryagainstdumps.org/images/007.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3D5RYqYRgLY/TF29LZLGo3I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/80ryKqbuMcM/s400/windmill-failure-02-400.jpg
P.S. Windmills grind corn. Windelecs generate electricity.
.

George E. Smith
March 22, 2011 10:31 am

“”””” Dave Springer says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:06 am
George E. Smith says:
March 21, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“I have mentioned that these things have a built in shake themselves to pieces vibration mode due to the vertical wind shear.”
Nuclear reactors have a different but no less nightmarish maintenance problem. High neutrino flux embrittles steel which in turn makes every microscopic defect in the steel a potential catastrophic failure point. “””””
Dave, MY post was of relevence ONLY to the problems of existing generations of installed Wind Turbines. I made; and intended, no comparison whatsoever with the problems of Nuclear, coal, hydro-electric, tidal, PEV solar, fossil fuel, bio-fuel, cow dung fuel, or wood burning; or any other energy technology, currently in use or contemplated.
I don’t have any problem with your posting information regarding such problems that you are knowledgeable about; but what is your point in linking it to a wind turbine problem that I mentioned; is there some coupling that I am not aware of between nuclear and wind turbines ?
And you mentioned the high neutrino flux degradation of steel, leasding to embrittlement.
This is the first time I have ever heard of such a mechanism. Usually one thinks of neutrinos, passing completley through the earth without hitting anything, so I was not aware that neutrinos were particularly damaging to steels.
I’m quite familar with the degradation of materials in reactors by the high Neutron flux that is an essential ingredient of nuclear fission energy. In fact the very first Transistor circuit that I ever designed and built over 50 years ago, was for the detection of Neutron fluxes; and in particular for the monitoring of the neutron damage to living tissue; as in human being exposure to neutron flux. I also built a very high sensitivity Scintillation detector for Neutrons, that was capable of completely isolating Neutrons from gamma rays, or alpha and beta charged particle fluxes. So I know something about Neutron damage; but this is the first time I have heard of neutrino damage to materials.
Can you tell us more about the specific neutrino capture events in steel, that lead to this damage.

Ralph
March 22, 2011 11:42 am

Off shore windelecs are even worse – once all that sea-spray gets to work. One set of Danish windelecs needed all their gearboxes replacing after just 18 months.
.

Ralph
March 22, 2011 12:07 pm

If you really want to know how useless wind power is, take a look at these two graphs. These are the wind charts for Liverpool Bay for January / February 2010 (where there are lots of windelecs).
http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/sadata_met_month.php?code=5&span=jan2010
http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/sadata_met_month.php?code=5&span=feb2010
The blue line is the sustained wind speed, and anything less than 7kts not supplying any worthwhile electrical power. Here we see more than a month – a full 40 days – without any significant wind, and so without any significant wind-inspired electrical power. This is the duration of outage that we need to store up electrical energy for, to prevent rolling blackouts across the country, and this makes a mockery of any arguments that we can store wind power for windless days.
Energy storage on this scale ‘aint going to happen. What will happen is rolling power cuts across the nation, and the entire economy grinding to a halt.
.

Jockdownsouth
March 22, 2011 12:53 pm

The lovely Subrosa has a post showing the disruption in rural Scotland as they press ahead with wind farms despite much local oppposition.
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2011/03/wind-turbine-installations-what-few-see.html

Dave Springer
March 25, 2011 5:39 am

Ralph says:
March 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm

If you really want to know how useless wind power is, take a look at these two graphs. These are the wind charts for Liverpool Bay for January / February 2010 (where there are lots of windelecs).
http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/sadata_met_month.php?code=5&span=jan2010
http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/sadata_met_month.php?code=5&span=feb2010
The blue line is the sustained wind speed, and anything less than 7kts not supplying any worthwhile electrical power. Here we see more than a month – a full 40 days – without any significant wind, and so without any significant wind-inspired electrical power. This is the duration of outage that we need to store up electrical energy for, to prevent rolling blackouts across the country, and this makes a mockery of any arguments that we can store wind power for windless days.
Energy storage on this scale ‘aint going to happen. What will happen is rolling power cuts across the nation, and the entire economy grinding to a halt.

If you look at the other 10 months of 2010 there’s hardly a day where the wind is under 7kts. In fact the wind is SO reliable there I suspect that in January and February the met station’s anemometer wasn’t working right – probably frozen.
However you are certainly right about storage being a problem for electricity generated by wind/solar. The answer today is large grids with many generators of different kinds in different places feeding it. I believe all these “alternatives” to fossil fuels including nuclear are stopgap measures and furthermore that none of them even come close to being economically competitive and will never be less expensive. However, I also believe that within the few decades all current alternatives and fossil fuel itself will be made obsolete by hydrocarbon fuels manufactured by way of biosynthetic organisms that turn sunlight, CO2, and wastewater directly into methane (natural gas), diesel, ethanol, and others as needed in one easy step. No natural organisms do this because generating these hydrocarbons bestows no survival advantage but are rather unneeded metabolic byproducts but a genetically engineered organism in an artificial environment which doesn’t have to compete with other organisms in the wild can easily do it. The salient point is it can be done so inexpensively that it will drive other sources of energy out of business. Even better is that abundant inexpensive energy is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to what synthetic organisms can produce for us. The age of nanotechnology is upon us. Synthetic organisms are the workers that build things to specification for us atom by atom and molecule by molecule. Hydrocarbon fuels just happen to be one of the easiest things to make because they are simple molecules that nature already produces in small quantities and require no complex macroscopic arrangement.

Dave Springer
March 25, 2011 5:44 am

George E. Smith says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:31 am
re; high neutrino flux embrittling steel
Typo on my part. I meant neutron flux.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT
March 27, 2011 12:56 pm

Could it be that GE, the back room dealer in most of this wasting of our tax money might be full of lies about how we need smart grids and wind machines? After all they’ve proven they have a real economic incentive to lie before this. Just look at Japan’s mess and think GE when you see the design of those nuclear plants. Now they say we need wind? Who can believe them. Their PR firm Edelman is a well paid liar for Jeff Immelt and so far the public is still believing these lies.

Duncan MacLeod
March 27, 2011 1:24 pm

This blog, and most of the comments, are typical of laypersons, or those who see things at a glance, don’t know what they are seeing or what they are talking about.
MOST of the wind Turbines that are visible from Highway 58 in the Tehachapi area are older designs that are being phased out. In fact, because it has been found that some of these “wind farms” along Highway 58, in the Tehachapi pass per se, were not situated in the best locations, some are being phased out and dismantled entirely.
These were older (some MUCH older), smaller, units with higher rotational speeds and greater maintenance issues. They did (do) not have the computerized blade pitch control mechanisms of newer units and thus were more prone to having their blades deployed (feathered) and brake failures. This would be particularly prevalent after a period of high winds during a storm. It was, and still is, not uncommon to see many of these older units inoperative after a weekend storm and before maintenance crews have been unable to come in, make repairs, and bring them back online. Also, as old turbines are being removed and new ones erected in their place, some of those that currently appear to be “inoperative” simply have not yet been completed and brought into service.
The newer, larger, and more modern turbines are located along Tehachapi Willow Springs Road and desert areas to the east of there. You will find that these larger units, which turn much more slowly, are in service for a much greater percentage of time. Right now, and with new construction of turbines occurring at a record pace, many of those that you don’t see operating, once again, simply have not yet been brought online.
I have lived in the Tehachapi area since 1986 and was a frequent visitor before that. I have seen the evolution of the wind industry in the area and have seen the technology and reliability of the systems increase exponentially in that time. Though there have been periods where the industry has suffered, and companies have gone out of business leaving inoperative and degrading equipment in their wake, but right now most of those are being removed, the properties being cleaned up, and MANY are being replaced with the latest, most modern, units. Some of the companies mentioned in this blog and comments, including Zond and Enron, in fact no longer exist.
Merely “passing through” does not give a true picture of the health or state of the industry. We who observe it everyday know that it is thriving and expanding. Tehachapi is proud to have reclaimed the title of “World Wind Energy Leader”

Brian H
March 27, 2011 10:28 pm

Well, Dunc, got your nose deep in the subsidy trough, I see! Don’t get too used to it …

Dodgy Geezer
April 7, 2011 2:00 am

@PSolar
“….More seriously though , this random, perhaps non representative report is not encouraging. Clearly this is picking out worst cases to make the point. Pictures of well maintained sites would be boring. Maybe a survey like surfacestations project would be interesting. ….This case alone seems to suggest badly structured subsidies are letting corporations cream of a nice profit without the need to actually produce any power.”
PSolar is quite right. This piece is a political one, NOT a scientific one. While I am opposed to wind and solar installations (and I assume PSolar supports them) I cannot take any data from this piece to advance my argument – it is all innuendo. What both sides of the argument really need is proper data – independently gathered. Data on electricity generation should be easy enough to get, but I suspect that costs for this will be much harder to pin down if wind power is funded by complicated subsidy structures. Companies like Enron have shown themselves to be very skilled at hiding financial data, so I suspect that the unit cost of any kind of electricity could be anything you want it to be.
I second PSolar’s call for a survey, though I am not sure what it might measure…

April 12, 2011 10:30 am

Does anyone know how I can get in touch with Mr. Watts? Perhaps someone knows an available email address?

April 12, 2011 7:05 pm

Back in the 1960’s and early 70’s, before government funded rural electrification projects had strung wires to just about every part of the country, I saw many ranches that had jury-rigged cheap vehicle alternators strapped onto the turning shafts of common water windmills. The alternators charged a bank of batteries, most often kept in a simple small shed somewhere below the tower.
Those homemade contraptions would provide enough electricity around the ranch house to run a radio telephone, a few lights, and the bigger systems even ran washing machines, a small “cracker box” welder, and a few hand held power tools too!
With careful planning for use, those ranch houses had enough electricity to do absolutely everything they needed to do, almost entirely for free.
Ranch house refrigerators, freezers, room and hot water heaters, ran off of free waste natural gas called “casing gas”, piped in from a nearby (sometimes a mile or more away) oil well. Or, they paid for propane, that was trucked in as the supply was needed.
Most ranchers used tough (bulletproof) Aermotor windmills, sturdy long lasting 12v or 24v American made vehicle alternators, and each had spare parts and their own way of hooking up the batteries and the wiring.
The “fans” of that type of windmill appear almost solid to a bird or bat, so few to no animals are ever lost in the blades. The average height of the tower rarely exceed 60′, and most are at or below 30′, so annual maintenance is relatively safe and easy, rather than a death defying act of pure courage. And most important, they last for years, and years, and years, with almost NO maintenance at all!
My point is, perhaps we need to look to the more simple things of the past, instead of blighting the landscape with giant techno-behemoths that suffer enormous line loss of the power they occasionally do manage to sputter and generate.
Those giants are extremely expensive to build. And, are very hard to keep operational without an entire well paid circus act, plus a huge crane or even two, just waiting in a constant state of mechanical standby.
So why not go “Back to the future”?
That’s just some food for thought…

April 13, 2011 3:30 pm

I am giving a speech for a speech class playing the devils advocate of being against wind energy. So many thing because it’s GREEN, it is a great alternative.
What I am having trouble finding is how much one costs to build? I am sure it varies at the largest level possible, but does anyone have any figures?

Mel
April 14, 2011 1:11 pm

Hmmm, what a mess! I agree this is a daunting problem but did we forget how many vehicles we’ve piled up in junk yards, back and front yards of homes or just left abandoned? How many houses or commercial/industrial buildings are abandon? All are eyes sores. The list could go on and on. It seems most of you are picking on an industry just for the sake of nagging and not looking at the whole picture.
Do you see opportunity? Any entrepreneurs out there?

Duncan MacLeod
April 17, 2011 8:18 pm

Brian H says: “Well, Dunc, got your nose deep in the subsidy trough, I see! Don’t get too used to it ”
Well Brian H., typical of anyone with limited knowledge of the FACTS (other than what they “read on the web”, and lacking the cerebral capacity to post an intelligent rebuttal, you resort to personal attacks and insults.
I’m a cop , and have absolutely no personal or professional ties to the wind industry.