Editor's note: This Q&A is a part of a survey conducted by Scientific American of executives at companies engaged in developing and implementing non–fossil fuel energy technologies.

What technical obstacles currently most curtail the growth of wind power? What are the prospects for overcoming them in the near future and the longer-term?
One of the primary obstacles is balancing electrical generation, load, and storage over time, since wind energy is a variable power source. As more utility-scale wind energy projects are developed across the U.S., the number of wind turbines operating in a given area will increase. This has been shown to inherently reduce wind's aggregate production variability, making it more predictable and reliable. Experience has also shown that using well-functioning hour-ahead and day-ahead markets and expanding access to those markets are effective tools for dealing with wind's variability. A deep real-time market is the most economical approach to providing the balancing energy required by wind plants with variable outputs. However, some regions of the U.S. lack centralized markets, so we need to continually pursue ways to provide access to balancing and related services.

Unlike many traditional power sources, wind cannot be accessed on demand. Wind is an energy source, not a capacity resource. Capacity sources are made available on demand, to meet system peak loads. Incorporating wind energy into power system operation and planning requires new ways of thinking about energy sources. To date, no backup capacity for wind energy has been added. Because wind is an intermittent resource, it is used when it is available. Therefore, surplus wind energy can grow substantially during times that do not match customer use patterns. There is a strong need to find ways we can store this surplus energy. Two proposed off-peak electricity uses of this surplus energy are the deployment of plug-in hybrid vehicles with off-peak charging and production of hydrogen to power vehicles.

Another primary technical obstacle is the lack of transmission infrastructure to enable delivery and trade of energy resources efficiently. To utilize the considerable wind resources the U.S. has, a significant amount of new transmission will be required. Every era of the U.S. has been accompanied by construction of new transmission. The last era of significant construction occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, transmission investment has lagged substantially in the last two decades.

The Department of Energy (DOE) released a report last year called "20% Wind Energy by 2030," delineating how we as a nation can achieve 20 percent of our energy from wind by 2030. One key component was a significant investment in new transmission lines. The DOE proposed that 12,650 miles of 765-kilovolt (kV) lines need to be built to suffice the 20 percent by 2030 scenario. This amounts to an investment of $60 billion between now and 2030, as suggested by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This requires significant transmission planning, allocation of the costs of the new transmission investments, assurance of cost recovery, and siting of new transmission lines—all of which will take a good amount of time and effort.

Although it will be a challenge, we are confident that President Barack Obama will make headway in this area with his aggressive clean energy plan. We believe he will set our nation on the right path to reach the 20 percent wind by 2030 goal. As part of this plan, he wants to pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage, and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st-century energy requirements. He also wants to deploy a "smart grid," which will utilize advanced technologies to manage peak load reductions, smart metering, distributed generation, and electricity storage systems.

Regional transmission-building plans are also in place. One such effort in our area is CapX2020, which is a joint initiative between 11 transmission-owning utilities in the Minnesota region to build four 230–345 kV transmission lines, connecting Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. Although these types of efforts are beneficial for the short-term, it really is the proposed national transmission system that will take our installed wind capacity to the next level.

Are there obstacles to scaling up wind power to serve a larger national or global customer base?
The country's main wind resource is concentrated in the central Plains states of the U.S. This is the same area that is least served by good transmission resources. In order to deliver wind power from the areas with strong resources to areas with the largest population centers, we need a more robust transmission infrastructure.

Can the existing energy infrastructure handle growth in wind power? Or does that, too, need further modification?
The existing infrastructure cannot accommodate adding significant wind power to the current energy mix. The DOE's "superhighway" plan (as described in the reply to the first question) would provide the specific infrastructure needed. This involves building over 12,000 miles of new 765-kV transmission lines to meet wind energy project demands. An added benefit of a national transmission system is the geographic diversity it provides to wind generation. Wind is an intermittent resource. When you connect geographically intermittent resources, you can obtain a more sustainable resource.

Given the current economic crisis, can your industry get the necessary capital (from public or private sources) to adequately finance its growth?
Although none of the financing for our projects has been withdrawn, sourcing capital for new projects has been more challenging. Much of the financing of wind is based upon is based upon receiving the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC). When U.S. businesses are uncertain of their profitability, they have a reduced demand for tax credits. A refundable tax credit or grant program would help alleviate this issue.

From a strategic standpoint, which is the bigger competitor for wind: incumbent coal, oil and gas technologies or other alternative energy technologies?
Solar and geothermal will be the most competitive once the technology evolves to the point where they are more economical.

Is there a cost target that you and others in your industry are aiming to achieve in, say, five years?
We do see the capital cost of wind development start to decrease in the next five years. A single megawatt of wind energy today costs $2 million to $2.5 million to develop. The increased cost of steel and other components for wind turbines has led to this elevated price tag. We believe that as turbine manufacturing increases in the U.S., and as more sufficient transmission is available, along with advancements in turbine technology, the capital cost of wind development will be on a downward scale.

According the American Wind Energy Association, U.S.-based turbine manufacturing facilities have grown by over 20 percent since 2005. This resulted in 70 new or announced facilities in the past two years and 13,000 new jobs last year alone.

7 Comments

1. 1. eaglesdare 11:11 PM 4/23/09

   Old school methodology of "central station" manufacturing power then shipping long distances is not a win for America. Transmission firms and the utilities benefit while rate payers will pay massive rates. Alas, investment capitol and Wall Street will boom while CAPX shall keep us held mostly to coal and whatever is in queue. Big transmission will slow the real national transition to wind. Coal behind a cloak of wind and solar, if you will. Industry using "green" as an excuse for upgrades claiming need when the most recent SEC K-10 numbers show companies like Xcel and others with a striking 11 percent drop in electric demand this past year. Past three years a steady, consistent drop in demand. Surprised? True  Were all using less power. Conservation is working. The industry paradigm is changing. Utilities fear loosing control as local communities attract local investment and quickly find strong supplies of wind and solar (or whatever they have in their region) using smaller "smart grids" which are far better  cheaper. Terrorism would no longer be a threat as cities link together inter-regionally. Less costly to build and maintain, will provide far more long term local jobs, and offer people within their own region a stake in the proverbial green pie. ILSR.org, for example, shows a study (Minnesota Meeting the Renewable Energy Requirement - http://www.newrules.org/energy/publications/meeting-minnesotas-renewable-energy-standard-using-existing-transmission-system) showing how we can begin this journey quickly. Given that big stimulus may soon appear and rate payer increases burdened with "ultra high voltage" transmission cost -- proving terrible line loss -- is looking less and less attractive. The alternative - Local Renewable being Dispersed Locally and shared regionally would in time prove great dividends nationally. The utilities aren't advertising it as would put us all in charge of our own energy future. Even the NY & New England ISO (or area grid systems) agree & have suggested they may not want such power from the Midwest ISO coal/wind. See more at www.cetf.us - Citizens Energy Task Force.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. epavlides 07:58 AM 4/24/09

   There are two issues that should have been mentioned in this article:
   1) Available hydroelectricity can be saved for a windless hour and be used as backup when there is less wind. Engineering studies in Canada have proven that the integration of hydro and wind can address the intermittency of wind power.
   2) From Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras there is 330 GW offshore wind potential waiting to be developed near huge population centers making transmission much less expensive than bringing it from the upper Midwest. Some of this potential (65GW) is in swallow waters and can be developed at costs that would make this wind electricity competitive with oil and natural gas electricity even before we add the externalities. What we pay to hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies for asthma and bronchitis are part of the real cost of electricity and should be added to what we pay utilities to calculate the true cost of electricity. Lefteris Pavlides

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. eaglesdare 11:14 AM 4/24/09

   Here in Minnesota - and regarding CAPX 2020. While those in the Midwest are quickly seeing wind and the efficacy of wind as it used correctly (locally using c-bed.com) - not mass farms trying to feed the eastern seaboard in wasteful super high voltage 1950's style build outs representing huge profit source for the utilities still hooked to mostly coal which is CapX, here today was a super Op-Ed in the Star Tribune hitting the nail on the head on what is really happening on the ground. We should all be outraged!
   
   http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=43589597

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Kroneborge 04:05 PM 4/24/09

   Local power is never going to provide all the answers. Rooftop solar etc isn't going to power large factories. In addition, there are economics of scale especially with things like wind.
   
   I'm not saying local power is bad, I'm just sayings it's insufficient to meet our needs.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. eaglesdare 08:05 PM 4/24/09

   Yes, and a year ago Kroneborge I would have agreed with you fully. Today, however after some review of evidence and current trending one must now begin to question otherwise. Here is one example: there is very large hospital and clinic in Western Wisconsin - Not far from Mayo - which just set up solar on a parking ramp. That plus a little conservation and they are down by 20% in electric usage. Now they are hooking to the local brewery and going to extract methane from the beer brewing process to make power. They are very firm that they will be energy neutral by 2014! Remarkable by any standard. (see www.gundluth.org/green) Gundersen Lutheran, La Crosse, WI
   
   The current energy industry profile (crash frankly) coupled with future tech could prove local power (dispersed locally) may very well be more than sufficient - if not also help with some answers surrounding economy and job loss. That all while addressing the serious issue of pollution.
   
   But then again, we were always sure if you sailed to the edge of the world you'd fall off - as we know it's flat!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. eaglesdare 08:26 PM 4/29/09

   Here, in contrast, is what we should all be working toward - C-Bed study using existing transmission Smart Grids -- NOT massive new "dumb" grids - which is what CAPX2020 and Green Power (wash) Express are. A rush by the Big Energy limiting us from a serious switch to wind.
   
   http://www.c-bed.org/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Murphy301 04:03 AM 5/2/09

   Time to get real people. This guy Leon Steinberg's eyes must be brown.
   The DOE said that 20% wind power by 2030 is "possible" they didn't say it was "practical" or "feasable". Right now we get 1% of our electricity from wind. To increase that to 20% the DOE says we'll need 142,060 new 1.5 MW turbines installed, operating at Max. capacity. Wind turbines only operate at Max. if the wind blows 33MPH, 24/7/365. That never happens. They actually only produce approx. 20% of their rated capacity which means 716,300 new turbines. At $2M+ per turbine that's about $1.5 trillion just for the turbines. Add the $60 billion in new transmission lines and we're starting to talk about real money. (And that's not even including the $100's of billions in Production Tax Credits (PTC's), TIF tax abatements, double declining depreciation etc. that wind companies get).
   Who do you think is going to pay for that, Mr. Steinberg and his Wind Industry friends? No. You and I are going to pay for it on our electric bills. You don't seriously think your local utility will just absorb the costs and not pass them on, do you?
   The sad thing is, even after all that waste of time, money, and resources it still wont solve our problem because, as Mr. Steinberg admits, "wind is an intermittent resource". It cannot be relied upon for baseload generation. You all remember "baseload" don't you? That's where you flip the switch in your house (or office, plant, hospital, etc.) and the lights actually come on! Every single KWh of wind produced electricity has to be backed up w/ a KWh of traditional electricity. That mostly means coal or nuke. Natural gas is a very expensive expensive way to produce electricity which is why it is mostly used only for peak demand. We do not use oil to produce electricity in the USA (less that 2% of the total).
   Wind "farms" produce most of their electricity at night and during the winter when demand is lowest and there is no way to store it for later use (please don't try the "pumping water" idea again. Even Mr. Steinberg didn't insult us w/ that one. There still is no such thing as perpetual motiion).
   I'm a little disappointed with S/A for not asking Mr. Steinberg about the negative impacts of wind turbines on people and the environment. There is a vast amount of information, from reliable sources, available on the health effects of living near wind turbines (noise - both audible and low-freq - shadow flicker, etc) not to mention reductions in property values and disruptions in wildlife habitat.
   Wind power is a colossal boondoggle.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this