How Many Turbines?

"Wind power critics claim the land use is too high for the value received. "

And they are right.

Squeezing in a few more turbines is not going tip the equation much due to the law of diminished returns.

Factoring in actual idle time for each turbine (maintenance and lack of winds), you would need to move the entire population out of the state of Texas and fill that state with wind farms to capture the daily electrical needs of the US.

This is not a very practical approach and it would certainly kill the sport of skydiving in that state, but it does illustrates the relative size required for generating the amount of electricity we need via the wind.

Stuffing a few more turbines in a wind farm really only changes things a few percent and wind is not a panacea for our energy needs by itself.

Some of the latest literature I have read about turbine spacing is that they are considering doubling the spacing to mitigate the effect of downwind turbulence on subsequent generators...Squeezing in more turbines is most likely going to decrease overall output for a given area.

As to wind farms not being "single use"- the ones with which I am familiar (Palm Springs and Livermore, in California) are most definitely single-use- whether this is by design or not, I do not know...

Isn't single use better than 0 use?

Depends on your definition of "0" use. Here in this part of the world, I can equate "0" use with preservation of tropical rain forest. There is a push to introduce wind energy to Panama- unfortunately, such projects destroy trees. But, then again, so does conventional hydro. Wind requires 50 hectares per MW of capacity, hydro 5 hectares per MW (solar 20 hectares).

Tropical rain forest supports very little top soil, and once cleared (traditionally for farming), the land may be useful for agriculture for 4 to 5 years. Once abandoned, it takes many years, if at all, for the original vegetation to recover. This has an impact on rainfall- trees recycle water to the atmosphere. There is now a desert in Panama that resulted from original land clearing by Spanish conquistadors for agriculture half a millennium ago. The pressure continues to clear ever more rain forest for human activities...

Not much rain forest on Altamont pass & water storage has it's own problems, where the rainfall totals are in the 400mm range

your point is well taken

Wind turbines being complex mechanical devices have unique challenges being competitive without subsides

The more correct term is spread out over not uses.

If they used all of the land then nothing could be done below them which is not true. If the land was unused before the wind turbine was there and is still unused after the turbine was put in place then that probably means that the land was pretty much useless anyway but at least now it producing some electrical power which is better than doing nothing at all.

A large wind generator has about the same average footprint as that of a common high voltage interstate power transmission line tower and just like one of those towers it only uses up the immediate space it sits on. Whatever can be done with the land below it can still be done just the same.

Relating to where those wind turbines get put there are two very different reasons why they get put where they do. One is because of well thought out and justified engineering and cost analysis studies done by competent engineers and business people. The other is because of politicians and idiots.

Just because a stupid politicians and the morons who follow them like to put them in bad locations where they don't work properly does not mean that all are bad and not worth the invested costs.

Being not a 'wind farmer' or a 'rancher', but a very good observer the wind turbines sit well in wheat country and the cattle graze with out disturbance. I have notice the Wheat and cattle men in western Okla. drive better pickups and bigger tractors, not quite as good as a nice HP gas well located on the ole farm. There is either a write off or a profit some where or they would go elsewhere and they do add to the state coffers and hire employees..

I'd rather have a wind turbine on my property than a gas well, having recently seen a story on TV about 'fracking' wells for increased gas/oil production, but contaminating ground water ! Makes me wonder about the 'Great Artesian Basin' here in Aus.

Here in the UK people are complaining that wind turbines are ruining the country side because they look so out of place on top of a hill or many placed in front of a beautiful view.

We have hundreds of these wind turbines (wind-farms) put up out at sea near our coast, and so far they only produce about 12 to 18% efficiency, most days they are not turning at all, so on these days we have to revert to using our coal or oil fired generating plants, this is not good enough as we are still pumping out dangerous CO2 and HS2 emissions into the atmosphere!!!

It wasn't too many years ago that the traditional Dutch windmills were considered picturesque and an enhancement to the view...There are those of us who remember the small windmills used to pump water that once dotted the Great Plains of the United States as being rather picturesque as well...

The land requirement for a modern wind turbine far exceeds the actual foot print of the tower. A wind turbine requires UNOBSTRUCTED air flow- any obstructions will tend to create turbulence in the air stream, which reduces the amount of energy that can be extracted. This is where the 50 hectares of land per MW comes from. No obstructions- no trees, no other wind turbines, no tall buildings. This is what defines wind turbine spacing. Traditional approach has been to space them on some multiple of the blade diameter (I don't remember the exact criteria), but experience has shown that this appears inadequate, and there is now talk of doubling (at least) the standard spacing.

The fact that these systems only deliver about 30% of their rated capacity for a really, really good site, and the fact that one must maintain more conventional alternatives on standby when the wind isn't blowing, are generally not factored in to the true cost of a wind farm. And because many countries have implemented financial incentives to promote adoption of the technology, there are a lot of scammers out there just tapping in to the public coffers, abandoning the projects once the government funds dry up. Some of those funds do wind up as a new pickups for some fortunate rancher, but who is going to maintain or remove that turbine when it stops working?

Sure sounds like when they go 'belly up' would be a fine time to break out the ole hack saw and put the new pickup to full use. Check the price of Metal...

I know a father/son wheat farmers in NE central Oregon, They had a major argument, the son wanted to install Wind Generators, the father didn't (wasted to much land), to compromise, they started with a few and now have several and still growing wheat and (expanding) Wind Generators and both are Very Happy Now. And yes, they are both driving New cars and trucks along with the latest greatest Hi-tech farming equipment.

I've been able to watch their growth over the years driving thru their area, going back and forth to my property outside Service Creek, Oregon.

Just being the Devils advocate from a location that likes and wants more turbines because they work well and actually do make money here.
So there's no overt or underlying subsidy then?

High-tech farm equipment can easily perform dipsy-doodles to go around whatever wind towers might otherwise block their paths. It's a win-win! Or wind-wind!

If some stupid politicians wants to pay you to make a profit are you going to say no I have enough money already?

We didn't keep our collective heads well above water during the economic down turn by being foolish about how we make and spend our money. If someone wants to pay us to make a profit we will certainly take that money too!

Hey

shame on you if you leave money on the table

I'm just wondering what actual viability is...

If they produce an average of 2 MW when running and run 30% of the year that works out to around,

$.03 per KWH = $60 an hour.

30% of 8765 hours a year = 2628

$60 x 2628 = $157680 per year minimum per unit.

However from personal observation of the wind farm just south of Minot, where I live by, the turbines rarely stop turning due to our higher average annual wind speed of around 13+ MPH so I suspect they have a much higher average run time and relative output numbers per year which is why they are profitable here.

They may not work everywhere but they work well here!

I keep saying that.

In my dreams, I know.

Woo hoo! Just tie 7 billion beanie-copters to the worldwide grid(s), and you're good to go. (///???)

So, put them offshore.

0.65*V3 is the basic power of wind blow.59 percent is the max recovery of power from wind. So that spacing required is clear.The air dam in the down stream may cause danger due to strong tidal force .