Go Green (Wind Turbines on Telephone Poles and Billboards)

[IchabodPlain]

It seems so intuitive - A small turbine, such as this, could realistically generate 1/5 of the annual energy for the average household (2400khw and 1.1MW, respectively). Telephone poles are ideal because they are already maintained, essentially paid for, and kept free from obstruction while standing some 15-20ft. No losses in long transmission lines. The model linked is $3500, uninstalled. Buying large quantities would shave that price down a peg. After a decade or so, they are paid for and producing power for only the cost of maintenance. This has the added plus of turning an eyesore into a power station (how retorical).

Billboards are even better because:

A) the structures can support larger blades and
B) the winds blow much harder - 20-35mph on a 40ft billboard

A 6ft turbine (or two, one on either end) could pay for and run itself in a very short period of time, putting power back into the grid thereafterwords.

Both of these seem like good ideas - why shouldn't this get done?

[Almo]

Telephone poles are owned by someone, and I'm sure there are more households than poles.

Though I'm all for people putting these on their own roofs.

[Jomante]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

why shouldn't this get done?

Who is going to do it / own it? Power companies? That would be a maintenance nightmare for them. Far easier for them to maintain a single high power generator like a hydroelectric dam or a coal burning plant in one place than to maintain hundreds of thousands or more generators at the top of utility poles.

Individuals? $3500 buys a lot of power. After 10 years recouping it you've also had the maintenance costs and potentially replacement costs if weather damages it.

Why would this technology be preferred over something like solar power? You've got interruption issues the same. It's damaging to the environment to manufacture (either one of those). And, IIRC, long blades = slower turning windmills = less birds killed. I think it makes more sense to do fewer large windmills than many small ones, particularly if you're doing it for environmental reasons as suggested by the title of this thread.

[HighRiser]

What you are calling telephone poles are, in most locations, utility poles that carry electrical power as well as phone and cable tv. The problem is that the electrical wires at the top of the poles are very likely at 3000 volts and deadly dangerous.

[Segnosaur]

One possible problem: In some areas they have abandoned utility poles in favor of underground electrical/phone cables.

[balrog666]

It would never pay for itself.
Maintenance would be a nightmare.
It would slaughter even more birds and bats than now.
But, most especially, the noise problem requires locations away from where people live.

[BillC]

Micro wind turbines of that size can be very inefficient. The manufacturer's figures imply a 28% load factor (200 kWh/month for a 1kW machine), which seems rather optimistic: generally you can expect about 20% for a large (3MW) set with a 100m hub height and placed in an exposed windswept location.

I'm doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the 'no losses in long power lines' bit. I'm not sure that such a scheme would lead to lower losses, but I have no feel for the numbers yet.

[BillC]

I seem to recall a somewhat damning report coming out of the UK on micro turbines. This is a bit second-hand, but all I can find right now: "One early study has shown that in some large urban environments, taking into account efficiency, lifetime and maintenance, micro-wind turbines may never pay-back their embodied carbon emissions".

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by Almo

Telephone poles are owned by someone, and I'm sure there are more households than poles.

Naturally. I think the ratio is 2:3, tele poles to homes, in the residential neighborhoods near me (only started really paying attention recently).

Quote:

Though I'm all for people putting these on their own roofs.

OK. The problem is that:

1)Single story homes aren't tall enough to pick up stronger winds
2)They are usually obstructed by surrounding trees

Essentially, you're missing out on the biggest advantages tele poles and billboards offer.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by Jomante

Who is going to do it / own it? Power companies?

It would be more cost effective that way, in terms of maintenance.

Quote:

That would be a maintenance nightmare for them.

Evidence?

Quote:

Far easier for them to maintain a single high power generator like a hydroelectric dam or a coal burning plant in one place than to maintain hundreds of thousands or more generators at the top of utility poles.

Well:

1) Hydroelectric locations are scarce
2) Coal is the most dangerous, pollutive, and destructive power source and hydroelectric (large scale dams) are the most environmentally damaging of the"green" options

Maintaining a single unit can be easier, however there is also diseconomies of scale: The repairs will be far more expensive, and maintenance will require a more specialized skill set (also more expensive). Also, large turbines are expensive - roughly $1 million per MW, uninstalled. For less than half of that, you could buy enough smaller turbines and produce the same amount of power.

Quote:

Individuals? $3500 buys a lot of power. After 10 years recouping it you've also had the maintenance costs and potentially replacement costs if weather damages it.

"A lot" is relative. If you're paying .07¢ per kWh, it's less than five years worth of power. I wasn't really thinking of it being owned per individual. Perhaps there could be "buy in" where individuals could put in part of the costs to install, but I thought of it as owned by power companies.

Quote:

Why would this technology be preferred over something like solar power?

On telephone poles, specifically? Surface area. Generally? IIRC, wind is more efficient.

Quote:

It's damaging to the environment to manufacture (either one of those).

Categorically? No, it is not. Further, your argument (as is) extrapolated would imply that we should not generate any type of power, because all energy options damage the environment. If you're saying that we shouldn't do it because we have to burn coal or oil to produce it - I don't see that as a issue if the eroi is greater than 0.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

One possible problem: In some areas they have abandoned utility poles in favor of underground electrical/phone cables.

Considering buried lines are 10x more expensive than traditional above ground lines, buried cables are usually reserved for densely populated areas and those susceptible to damage strong winds. Both situations would not be favorable for small turbines because of excessive turbulance and high wind speed which can damage the unit. So, I don't see it as an issue for those three reasons.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by balrog666

It would never pay for itself.

Evidence?

Quote:

Maintenance would be a nightmare.

Evidence?

Quote:

It would slaughter even more birds and bats than now.

Quote:

And, IIRC, long blades = slower turning windmills = less birds killed. I think it makes more sense to do fewer large windmills than many small ones, particularly if you're doing it for environmental reasons as suggested by the title of this thread.

Seeing as it's been brought up a couple times: Are wind turbines little more than thiny-veiled bird-killing machines? I guess I need to look into it.

Quote:

But, most especially, the noise problem requires locations away from where people live.

From what I've seen it's about 30dbs or so, which isn't very loud.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by BillC

Micro wind turbines of that size can be very inefficient. The manufacturer's figures imply a 28% load factor (200 kWh/month for a 1kW machine), which seems rather optimistic: generally you can expect about 20% for a large (3MW) set with a 100m hub height and placed in an exposed windswept location.

I'm doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the 'no losses in long power lines' bit. I'm not sure that such a scheme would lead to lower losses, but I have no feel for the numbers yet.

TBH, I'm not well-versed in the maths of this, and it will be math - not rhetoric - that makes or breaks the idea. I expected their numbers to be best case, but i think the idea is such that i don't need best case for it to work. As for losses in lines, on one hand you have something that will need miles and miles of transmission lines for larger turbines, and on the other, something that is parked next to the grid (literally). It seems intuitive, but the math escapes me.

Also, thanks for the link in your other post I'll definitely have a read of it.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Considering buried lines are 10x more expensive than traditional above ground lines, buried cables are usually reserved for densely populated areas and those susceptible to damage strong winds. Both situations would not be favorable for small turbines because of excessive turbulance and high wind speed which can damage the unit. So, I don't see it as an issue for those three reasons.

FYI, in a rural setting, I was quoted a price of $7/ft for installed overhead, $8/ft for underground electrical service on my own land. There was an additional cost for a riser for the underground option.

[Jomante]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

It would be more cost effective that way, in terms of maintenance.



Evidence?

+

Quote:

Maintaining a single unit can be easier, however there is also diseconomies of scale: The repairs will be far more expensive, and maintenance will require a more specialized skill set (also more expensive).

Figure 1.7 shows that as the windmills get larger, the maintenance cost per kwh goes down. Look closely at the largest impact of cost. It's the repairs. The smaller ones actually cost more to repair per kwh than the larger ones did.

Quote:

Well:

1) Hydroelectric locations are scarce
2) Coal is the most dangerous, pollutive, and destructive power source and hydroelectric (large scale dams) are the most environmentally damaging of the"green" options

Yes, there are problems with all forms of power generation. That doesn't change the point I was making, which is that power companies do centralized because it is cheaper.

Quote:

IIRC, wind is more efficient.

Maybe. Or maybe not. That's just one example, but it would make sense that certain areas would be more efficient in one method vs the other.

Quote:

Categorically? No, it is not. Further, your argument (as is) extrapolated would imply that we should not generate any type of power, because all energy options damage the environment. If you're saying that we shouldn't do it because we have to burn coal or oil to produce it - I don't see that as a issue if the eroi is greater than 0.

Actually, no. My argument was that if you were going to do this for "green" reasons, it's less impact to the environment to build fewer big ones than many small ones.

[balrog666]

It's simple economics - just as with solar panels, if they paid for themselves, they wouldn't need subsidies, any better than break even and the manufacturers would pay you to let them install them.

[BillC]

Originally Posted by BillC

I'm doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the 'no losses in long power lines' bit. I'm not sure that such a scheme would lead to lower losses, but I have no feel for the numbers yet.

I compared two hypothetical (and greatly simplified) systems: in the first, a 1000 MW generator feeds a single 100km power line at 400kV and then transformed in 3 stages to 250V. In the second, 1,000,000 1kW wind turbines feed 1km lines at 250V, each to a single load.

Assuming the three-stage transformation takes place at 99.5%, 99% and 98% efficiency, and assuming reasonable values for the HV line thickness and resistivity, I got losses of 38 MW (of which 3.5MW were in the line), giving a transmission efficiency of 96.2%.

The second case gave me transmission (strictly: distribution) losses of 35 MW, very close considering the number of approximations made.

High voltage lines are very efficient: I took a quick look at the national transmission study before leaving work: one particular line in east England was bearing a load of 600MW with less than 2.5 MW loss, an efficiency of better than 99.5%. Higher losses are exhibited at lower voltages, where resistance effects tend to dominate over reactance. (It is the reverse at high voltages.)

One conclusion of this admittedly simplified analysis is that one cannot say local microgeneration schemes will significantly reduce transmission losses.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by shadron

FYI, in a rural setting, I was quoted a price of $7/ft for installed overhead, $8/ft for underground electrical service on my own land. There was an additional cost for a riser for the underground option.

The bolded provides basis for your price difference, then increased maintenance and repair costs. I recall from an NPR story about the 10/1 ratio. I'll see if I can find it. From here:

Quote:

SIEGEL: A million dollars per mile underground. And, say, above ground?

KURY: Well, that would be roughly the incremental cost.

SIEGEL: The incremental cost. I've heard the ratio 10 to 1 tossed around. That it's ten times more expensive to bury power lines than to run them above ground.

KURY: Ten to one is probably not a bad back in the envelope number.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

It would be more cost effective that way, in terms of maintenance.

Utility poles aren't always capable of supporting the weight of the wires they are designed to carry. Especially when it gets, you know, windy. I'd suggest bouncing the idea off one or two of the guys that go out during storms to repair downed power lines before making assumptions about how cost effective it would be from a maintenance standpoint.

[BillC]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

The bolded provides basis for your price difference, then increased maintenance and repair costs. I recall from an NPR story about the 10/1 ratio. I'll see if I can find it. From here:

It's unclear whether they're referring to high- or low voltage lines. I expect there to be a substantial dependency in the undergrounding/overhead cost ratio to the rating of the line, due to the need to force-cool high power lines with oil.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Evidence?


Evidence?

That sounds too much like hard work!

Look at it this way. We already have a whole host of renewable sources: windmills, solar farms, geothermal sources, tidal power etc. Yet none of these have taken off in a big way yet. Why is this so?

Is it because it is so much cheaper to use fossil fuels to generate energy?

.... or is there a conspiracy?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Look at it this way. We already have a whole host of renewable sources: windmills, solar farms, geothermal sources, tidal power etc. Yet none of these have taken off in a big way yet. Why is this so?

Is it because it is so much cheaper to use fossil fuels to generate energy?

Those results may have been skewed by the fact that we have been considerably more generous in subsidizing fossil fuels, but that aside, I doubt that the reason wind hasn't taken off is that no one's thought of mounting small wind generators on top of utility poles.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

... we have been considerably more generous in subsidizing fossil fuels ...

Evidence?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Evidence?

No prob:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

[bruto]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

It seems so intuitive - A small turbine, such as this, could realistically generate 1/5 of the annual energy for the average household (2400khw and 1.1MW, respectively). Telephone poles are ideal because they are already maintained, essentially paid for, and kept free from obstruction while standing some 15-20ft. No losses in long transmission lines. The model linked is $3500, uninstalled. Buying large quantities would shave that price down a peg. After a decade or so, they are paid for and producing power for only the cost of maintenance. This has the added plus of turning an eyesore into a power station (how retorical).

Billboards are even better because:

A) the structures can support larger blades and
B) the winds blow much harder - 20-35mph on a 40ft billboard

A 6ft turbine (or two, one on either end) could pay for and run itself in a very short period of time, putting power back into the grid thereafterwords.

Both of these seem like good ideas - why shouldn't this get done?

Why do winds blow harder on a billboard?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

No prob:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

According to the report, subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008 totalled $72.5B while that for renewable fuels totalled $28.9B. Considering the proportion of energy that comes from renewable sources, that makes renewable energy the clear winner on a per unit basis.

If the entire $100B were used to subsidize renewable sources only, what difference would it make today? Obviously energy would be more expensive but would we have more renewable energy?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by psionl0

According to the report, subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008 totalled $72.5B while that for renewable fuels totalled $28.9B. Considering the proportion of energy that comes from renewable sources, that makes renewable energy the clear winner on a per unit basis.

It also makes fossil fuels more expensive than they appear to be if you neglect to take into account the cost burden carried by the taxpayer.

But no, wind is never going to "take off in a big way", regardless of how much money we throw at it, and regardless of where we put the generators. Neither is solar, nuclear, or anything else. There isn't any energy source that's going to provide the same kinds of returns on investment that were seen during the time when we were extracting the first half of the world's oil supply -- including oil. We're looking at contraction in the world's supply of energy, and on economies that depend on abundant supplies of cheap energy. We're leaving the age of "taking off in big ways" and entering the age of "hanging on by our fingernails".

[DC]

Originally Posted by balrog666

It's simple economics - just as with solar panels, if they paid for themselves, they wouldn't need subsidies, any better than break even and the manufacturers would pay you to let them install them.

so oilcompanies are not profitable? they get subsidies.

[bruto]

Still waiting to hear why billboards see higher wind speeds than everything else, but in the meantime I suppose it might be worthwhile to mention that small windmills, neat as they are, do have some drawbacks too. A relatively high cost for the output, a lot of wearing parts, the need for each windmill to include its own synchronous inverter to connect to the main lines, and the unfortunate fact that small windmills are noisy. Before you start advocating a street lined with little wind turbines, you'd better know what that would sound like.

For those living in New England, who also would happen to enjoy a delicious fish dinner, I recommend a visit to Galilee, Rhode Island. There is a municipal beach there, whose facility is powered by its own wind turbine. It's a very fine idea, and an apt use of the technology. It emits a considerable, audible buzz all the time. It's fine where it is, but I am certainly glad I don't have one of these on the pole in front of my house.

In addition, I suppose I should add that, at least where I live, out in the country, only the high tension lines are given really open clearings. The poles that run down the roads, which carry phone and house to house power, have very little clearing around them. Even if there were room for a windmill atop these poles, and room for the extra guying they would need to withstand the stress, they would get little wind without extensive clearing of tree lines, which would almost certainly be very ugly as well as very expensive.

Of course, in Vermont, wind amplification by billboards is against the law.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by DC

so oilcompanies are not profitable? they get subsidies.

Really? Payouts from the government? Got any evidence for that?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Really? Payouts from the government? Got any evidence for that?

Try the link I posted above.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

No prob:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

Thanks, D.

Good stuff, but not surprising for a Strategic Problem; US DoD needed and needs fossil fuels to operate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

There isn't any energy source that's going to provide the same kinds of returns on investment that were seen during the time when we were extracting the first half of the world's oil supply

Complete and utter BS. Utterly divorced from reality.

Originally Posted by Dymanic

We're looking at contraction in the world's supply of energy, and on economies that depend on abundant supplies of cheap energy.

We have tens of thousands of years of thorium available. Millions of years of uranium. With tens of millions of years more percolating in the earths mantle waiting for vulcanism and plate tectonics to bring it to the surface.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Complete and utter BS. Utterly divorced from reality.

Evidently, the investors are also divorced from your reality. And if you think it's hard to get funding for nukes now, just wait until economies are already experiencing rapid contraction due to shortages of the resource they're actually set up for.

Quote:

We have tens of thousands of years of thorium available.

As irrelevant as the fact that we have billions of years of solar energy available. What matters is how much it costs to build the necessary infrastructure, how long it takes to actually start producing energy, and how effectively that energy can be utilized.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Good thing LFTRs are cheaper to build than Gen III designs then.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Good thing LFTRs are cheaper to build than Gen III designs then.

That probably explains the mad scramble among investors to back them.

[DC]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Really? Payouts from the government? Got any evidence for that?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...842454412.html

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by DC

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...842454412.html

Those aren't payouts (subsidies), they are normal tax deductions any business can use - feel free to look up the actual bill.

[sowellfan]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

"A lot" is relative. If you're paying .07¢ per kWh, it's less than five years worth of power. I wasn't really thinking of it being owned per individual. Perhaps there could be "buy in" where individuals could put in part of the costs to install, but I thought of it as owned by power companies.

I'm still not sure how your math is working, with thinking that these things have a reasonable payback time. Let's figure a typical home consumes 958 kwh/month @ $0.10/kwh (the 958 kwh/month figure comes from this website). That'll cost $95.80/month * 12 months/year = $1150/year. The turbine you linked would gain 200 kwh/month * $0.10/kwh = $20/month * 12 months/year = $240/year. So, just to cover the $3500 cost of the unit, before you even install it, you're talking about 14.6 years. Beyond that, you have to install the thing, which I'd guess would be at least $500 - you might be tempted to lowball that, but somebody would have to mount the thing, then run wires across the yard, conceal the wires perhaps, and tie into the breaker. So, I think even in the best case scenario, you're looking at 15+ years - and you haven't spent the first dollar on maintaining the equipment yet. How long do you think it'll last?

Also, you seemed to doubt someone else's comment that it'd be a maintenance nightmare for the power company people. Why's that hard to believe, compared to a central power plant and transmission stations? Heck, even a large group of a couple thousand huge wind turbines would probably be easier to deal with. If the little turbines somehow got traction, you're talking about a few hundred thousand in a decent-sized city, located in amongst the areas where people work, drive, etc. It's just harder to deal with things like that.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Those aren't payouts (subsidies), they are normal tax deductions any business can use

"According to the most recent study (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Quote:

...feel free to look up the actual bill.

Again, feel free to read the pdf I linked above. Between 2002 and 2008, direct spending on traditional fossil fuels was $16.3 billion.