Let me see if I have this straight . . .
There's a wind turbine out at the airport that is going to go into operation this fall, at a cost of $2 million, and it will generate 2,500 megawatts of electricity a year.
The pilot river turbine at L & D 21 is going to cost $6.6 million initially for the first phase. If that works out, 30 turbines will then be installed, with electricity coming online by 2015 or 2017. Total yield from the full project will be "up to" 15 megawatts.
Is that correct? Or are some of these numbers out of line?
The pilot river turbine at L & D 21 is going to cost $6.6 million initially for the first phase. If that works out, 30 turbines will then be installed, with electricity coming online by 2015 or 2017. Total yield from the full project will be "up to" 15 megawatts.
Is that correct? Or are some of these numbers out of line?
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 11:18 AM
7 Comments:
The difference is that one is a case of using tax money to build something as part of a political agenda and the other is driven by rate of return.
What I am wondering is if the megawattage of the wind-power facility has been overstated. If not, why isn't the city putting wind turbines on every high spot within fifty miles?
From QNO:
"Amy Looten of the Quincy Area Chamber of Commerce, Jim Thompson with Adams Electric Cooperative and Jay Bartlett of Prairie Power each spoke to the council and gave their support of the hydroelectric project."
AEC might be in VERBAL support of this project but there putting their money into wind.
Find that quite funny do u?
Do as I say not as I do.
To Allthenewsthatfits, I'd say the number probably refers to 2500 megawattHOURS. Megawatts refers to capacity. Megawatthours indicates how much of that capacity is used over time. Consider CIPS's flagship generator, Newton Power Station. Newton, which generates power for thousands of customers, has a rated capacity of 1,234 megawatts [source: DOE Energy Information Adminstration - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860a.html/) If all of that capacity is used for one hour, that equals 1,234 megawatthours. We can see, then, that if that one wind-powered generator could provide 2500 megawatts, we could easily retire two of those coal-fired Newton Stations and rely on wind instead.
Thanks very much for the clarification. So . . . what would be equivalent numbers for the two generators? I am having trouble figuring out how to compare them.
Adams Electric Coop would be best source for answer to your question. Information from the American Wind Energy Association (http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html/) may help in the meantime:
"How many (wind) turbines does it take to make one megawatt (MW)?
"Most manufacturers of utility-scale turbines offer machines in the 700-kW to 2.5-MW range. Ten 700-kW units would make a 7-MW wind plant, while 10 2.5-MW machines would make a 25-MW facility. In the future, machines of larger size will be available, although they will probably be installed offshore, where larger transportation and construction equipment can be used. Units up to 5 MW in capacity are now under development.
"How many homes can one megawatt of wind energy supply?
"An average U.S. household uses about 10,655 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. One megawatt of wind energy can generate from 2.4 to more than 3 million kWh annually. Therefore, a megawatt of wind generates about as much electricity as 225 to 300 households use."
I'm a big fan of wind power- you drive through the upper midwest down 80 or 70 and you see huge wind farms popping up left and right. If they do install a wind farm around Quincy they should start holding city council and school board meetings there though- imagine harnessing that hot air.
Post a Comment
<< Home