TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1990 / 92 / jan_mar / 0113330.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 8KB | 173 lines

<text> <title> (Jan. 13, 1992) Wind Power:Breezing into the Future </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Endangered Earth Updates Jan. 13, 1992 The Recession:How Bad Is It? </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> ENVIRONMENT, Page 48 Breezing into the Future </hdr> <body> How can America curb its dangerous dependence on scarce, nasty fossil fuels? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. By Dick Thompson/Washington A decade ago, windmills promised to be a clean, reliable source of power that could help wean America from its dependence on dirty fuels and foreign oil. The idea of harnessing an energy supply that was free as the breeze generated enough megawatts of excitement to light up an entire new industry. Spurred by generous government tax incentives, investors poured more than $2.5 billion into U.S. wind projects during the early 1980s. But enthusiasm was not enough to propel the dream into reality. "Wind developed a reputation for not working, and it had the stigma of a tax scam," says Robert Thresher, the wind-program manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Eventually the problems caused power companies to back away. And by 1985, when the tax credits expired, the remaining wind towers began looking more and more like monuments to a lost cause. Now, however, there's new energy in the wind. Engineers have used advanced technology to make wind turbines that are far more efficient and cost effective than those of yesteryear. Says J. Michael Davis, chief of renewable-energy programs at the U.S. Department of Energy: "These machines are real and reliable." Today's models are capable of meeting 10% of America's energy demand, and within 30 years, newer versions could provide for a quarter of the nation's power needs. Such figures have re-energized the manufacturers of wind-power equipment and attracted the interest of foreign competitors. Utilities are conducting wind surveys and starting pilot projects. And a new breed of wildcatter is scurrying to buy up wind rights--licenses to erect what may be the oil wells of tomorrow. For years, the wind industry's goal has been to produce power at rates similar to oil's: roughly a nickel for a kilowatt. Machines now operating in California can produce energy at 7 cents per kW. In areas of consistent high winds, the next generation, currently being deployed, will bring that cost down to 5 cents by 1995, and more advanced designs are likely to shave off another penny by the year 2000. While many locales do not have enough wind to use the technology, enhancements already in the works will expand by a factor of 20 the area of land that can generate wind power profitably, according to experts at the National Renewable Energy Lab. Wind's success says something about a dicey political issue: Should government tamper with free enterprise to nurture a new technology? The answer for renewable energy sources is definitely yes. Had manufacturers and utilities not received state and federal assistance early on, the future of wind power would now be controlled by either Japan or Europe; both have consistently funded wind research. Today American technology dominates the field. In a sense, wind power has come full circle. In the early 1900s, most of the electricity on U.S. farms was provided by windmills. Those were replaced during the 1930s when the Rural Electrification Administration wired the countryside. But the oil embargoes and environmental concerns of the '70s prodded politicians to encourage the investigation of alternative energy sources. States began requiring their utilities to spend between 1% and 2% of profits on research, and the federal government added its generous tax credits for investments in renewables. Unfortunately, the credits were for investment, not performance. Consequently, many wind-power machines seemed to be designed on an accountant's calculator to capture more deductions than breezes. Some towers were planted in fields of feeble winds. Others broke down with frustrating regularity. But a few companies persisted, and California in particular became the nursery for advanced technology. The state's hot central valleys are linked to the cool ocean by a series of gorges and valleys along the coast that act like wind tunnels. It was in these natural labs that engineers began testing new designs. The failures of the 1980s showed the researchers that they knew almost nothing about building machines that could withstand and harness the turbulence of wind. Early models used blades of a type originally designed for helicopters. Since wind pressure could vary considerably from one end of the blade to the other, the rotor would wobble wildly and eventually break off. Sudden gusts of wind could overpower the machine and burn out its energy-converting turbine. Some engineers tried solving the problems by building heavier machines, but that simply made them more expensive. After much trial and error, researchers modified the contours of the blades; some, for instance, are thicker in the middle in order to provide more stability. Engineers put electronic sensors atop the towers that could constantly monitor wind direction and turn the machine to correct for changes. The sensors do not respond to every fluctuation, but when a computer calculates a sustained 15 degrees shift, it signals for a turn into the wind. The leading American manufacturer, U.S. Wind power of Livermore, Calif., has built machines with electronic components that act as a giant surge protector, keeping sudden bursts of energy produced by gusts from overpowering the turbine. Researchers also found that less than ideal placement of a windmill can have a major impact: missing 10% of the wind can reduce power 30%. Moreover, the arrangement of turbines within a wind "farm" is important because the wake produced by one windmill affects those around it. Computers are being used to simulate varied terrain and calculate how to produce the most energy. The advances are slowly changing the way utilities evaluate the technology. "We look at it as a real competitive option," says Carl Weinberg, director of research for San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric. Outside California, however, wind power still carries the burden of past failures. Even though a government survey found that 10 Midwestern states could more than meet all their electrical power needs from wind, no major wind projects are planned in the region for 1992. But growing public concern over pollution from burning fossil fuels will increase the pressure for renewable energy. Several states are starting to require utilities to factor the cost of environmental damage into the cost of power production. In California, where the process of calculating environmental cost is just beginning, wind power may be assigned a price 15% lower than that for energy from traditional sources. Seven different proposals are before Congress to provide incentives for new wind-turbine purchases. Surprisingly, the energy industry itself is divided on the value of such incentives. Turbine manufacturers believe that wind should prove itself competitive without further special assistance. But utilities would like a tax credit to make investment more attractive. Additional technological advances now on the drawing board are likely to make wind power even more appealing. Engineers plan to boost the towers in some areas higher than they are at present so that the machines can escape ground turbulence and tap more consistent winds. Lighter materials could reduce the cost of building the towers. And researchers are looking into ways to store excess energy produced during windy periods so that it could be banked for use on calmer days or during peak energy demand. If wind power does not fulfill its promise as a major energy source by the end of the century, it will not be a failure of technology. It will be a failure of vision on the part of society to make the necessary commitment. </body> </article> </text>