Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg addressed a conference in Nevada, saying he wanted NYC to get 10% of its electricity from wind power in ten years. It's a great idea, and we should support the effort -- but what will it take?

Currently, NYC's peak electricity demand is about 13,000 megawatts (MW). (Note: Some reports say 34,000MW, but on July 19, 2005, Con Ed issued a press release saying they had reached a new peak at 12,365MW, and four years earlier they said there was a record at just over 12,000MW so I'm guessing the 34,000MW reports are wrong). Average use in NYC seems to be about 8,000-8,500MW. Assuming growth in demand, let's say we want to get 1,000MW from wind power in a decade.

General Electric's top wind turbine can turn out up to 3.6MW of power, but only when the wind is blowing at least 36mph. At 23mph, that turbine only turns out half the power, or about 1.8MW. They also have a turbine that is slightly more efficient at lower wind speeds, and tops out at 2.5MW when the wind is 28mph. (Note: Siemens also makes competitive wind turbines, and there may be others as well.)

Let's assume turbines somewhere offshore, where the average wind speed allows for 2.0MW per turbine. That means we would need 500 turbines. Based on an order recently placed by T. Boone Pickens, the turbines apparently cost about $3 million apiece, for a total of $1.5 billion. For offshore installation and power lines the cost will be somewhat higher. The total could come to around $2,000 per kilowatt. If we're charged $.20 per kilowatt-hour (my Con Ed bill shows a higher final rate now), that means the turbines have to run for 10,000 hours at no cost to pay for themselves. That's almost 14 months of continuous operation.

Since maintenance and other running costs (not to mention interest on the bonds that would be floated to purchase the turbines) will add time before "break even," these turbines had better run for a while. So far, I've found five-year warranties for GE wind turbines; they may actually be longer.

It seems to me that if the technical details can be worked out (where to put them, where to put transmission lines, actual installation, etc.), it could happen. These details have already been worked out in other places, so there's no reason to think that's a problem. It also appears that it could be cost-effective, given that the turbines are designed to run for years. The one real problem could be that wherever some "powers that be" choose to put turbines there will be some groups complaining. So we should be ready to deal with that problem, not just by crossing that bridge when we come to it, but by addressing the concerns of environmental groups before a final decision is made. By taking the political steps in the right order, Mayor Bloomberg's "clean energy" dream could not only be realized, but exceeded.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |