| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I would think that expecting 50% performance factor for a single
large wind turbine is rather optimistic, unless you live in a
particularly windy area (but not so windy that the turbine would have
to be shut down too often because of too string winds).
Did you consider distributed power generation on campus rather than a
single large (for the size of the project) generation system?
Distributed solar power, meaning installing solar PV panels on any
large rooftop areas and over parking lots, or small wind turbines on
rooftops (vertical axis turbines are often quite suitable for small
installations and are less visually obtrusive or noisy), and then
using the power generated in nearby buildings, where the distribution
system is already in place might have been a more practical
alternative, depending on what storage or additional generation would
be needed for load balancing.
Was the goal of the project saving money, or "getting green"? While
doing both is great, of course, that isn't always possible, so the
university would need to consider how much more they are willing to
pay in order to "green up" the campus.
How are the buildings and campus hot water heated? If either is by
electricity, solar thermal panels might have been a good alternative
for either or those tasks, and that would have reduced the electric
load that would have been needed from the wind source(s).
Were their any federal or state incentives for the university that
might have reduced the possible pay-back time?
How much effort was put into increasing energy efficiency on campus
that might have also reduced the electrical demand? Building
efficiency is often the low-hanging fruit in projects like this--easy
to do (with some thought and planning) and often much cheaper than
the electricity used to cover the inefficiencies. But such projects,
especially those that depend on large-scale cooperation by the people
impacted need to be as transparent and automatic as possible, and
combined with a PR campaign to get active participation from as many
people as possible.
Sometimes, as apparently you found in your study, direct production
of energy is jut not practical, in which case other alternatives can
be sought--making the campus more bicycle-friendly; ramping up a
recycling program; converting the university's motor fleet to
electric or PHEV wherever possible (and using solar PV in the parking
yards to recharge electric vehicles); solar thermal projects, as
mentioned above; converting incandescent lighting to CFL or LED, if
your campus had a central steam heating system, installing a
co-generation system could be a consideration, and steam tunnels can
often be used to do double duty in electric power distribution;
insuring that all new buildings are designed to be as
energy-efficient as possible and incorporate improved energy
efficiency into all existing building renovations; creating a campus
web-site that will display continuously the current and accumulating
energy savings due to campus improvements (such software already
exits and there are several companies that specialize in this type of
installation--check with the folks at AASHE for details)--programs
like this have been effective in getting the campus people involved
in an energy-saving program.
I don't know how narrowly focused your study group was or what the
initial charter of the group was, but I hope that it's mandate was a
broad as possible. If all you were allowed to do was look at this
particular wind turbine and how it could be used, then I think you
entered into the project with your hands tied behind your back. A
also don't know whether any of the possible alternatives I've
mentioned would have been practical in your particular situation, but
my list is hardly exhaustive. AASHE is in the business of helping
educational installations "get green," and they can be of great help
in difficult situations.
Contrary to your conclusion, my impression is that the energy/climate
problem will only be solved if we use the mantra "think globally, act
locally" as at least a major part of our thinking in these matters.
Some things need to be done on a national or global scale, but my
observation of the Washington scene from close up tells me that those
things will only happen when the pressure to do so from below becomes
overwhelming. We have to set the example for the state, federal and
other national agencies to act by showing them how we can do it
locally.