Subject: Wind Energy Weekly #5 1/2

From: [email-masked] (Howard Smith)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 13:32:00 -0700

This message was from [email-masked] to HOWARD SMITH
originally in conference EMAIL
and was forwarded to you by HOWARD SMITH
                    ----------------------------------------
[The following is the electronic edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_,
Vol. 12, #553, 6.28.93, published by the American Wind Energy
Association.  For more information on the Association, contact
AWEA, 777 North Capitol Street, Suite 805, Washington, DC 20002,
USA, phone (202) 408-8988, FAX (202) 408-8536, email
[email-masked]]

NORWAY HOSTS ARCTIC
GLOBAL CHANGE MEETING

     The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) will host
an international conference August 21-26 on "Global Change and
Arctic Terrestrial Ecosystems," according to a notice on the
electronic network EcoNet.

     The purpose of the meeting will be to improve communication
and coordination among arctic researchers, "to assess likely
positive and negative feedbacks of arctic ecosystems on the global
atmosphere and climate," and to understand the impact of
"anticipated global change" on the arctic.

     The conference will take place in Oppdal, Norway.  For further
information, contact Dr. Jarle Holten, NINA, Tungasletta 2, N-7005
Trondheim, Norway, phone 011-47-7-580500, fax 011-47-7-915433, e-
mail [email-masked].

MCGOWAN REFUTES MYTHS
ABOUT WIND ENERGY

     Wind energy technology's recent progress is "shattering
myths," writes Prof. Jon G. McGowan of the University of
Massachusetts in a recent article for the magazine Technology
Review.

     McGowan, co-director of the University's Renewable Energy
Research Laboratory, identifies specific public misconceptions
about wind as follows:

o    Windpower is not a significant energy resource.  While wind is
     dispersed, McGowan notes, the total resource is "huge," with
     the state of North Dakota alone being potentially capable of
     supplying more than a third of the electric power currently
     consumed by the continental U.S.  Many other studies and
     estimates, by individual states and by other countries,
     support the view that wind energy can provide large amounts of
     power.

o    Wind-generated electricity is expensive and unreliable.
     According to McGowan, the notion of wind as costly stems
     largely from early U.S. government research machines, which
     were one-of-a-kind units, rather than mass-produced commercial
     models.  Estimates from Electric Power Research Institute and
     the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, he adds, place the
     cost of power from new windfarms at about 5 cents/kWh.

o    New designs are needed to make windpower feasible.  Current
     wind turbines are highly efficient, McGowan says, and further
     improvements are likely to be incremental in nature.  McGowan
     mentions advanced rotor blades, incorporation of composite
     materials, power electronics, and variable-speed generators as
     potential areas for further development.

o    Wind is impractical for utility use because of its
     intermittent nature and because of interconnection problems.
     While the wind is a variable energy source, McGowan says,
     utilities can factor its variability into their system
     planning.  The United Kingdom's Central Electricity Generating
     Board, he notes, concluded in a recent study that up to 20
     percent of that nation's electrical power could be contributed
     by wind without significant changes to the power grid.  Beyond
     that level, batteries or pumped hydro would be needed to store
     excess wind energy and feed it back to the grid during periods
     of low wind speeds.

SUBSIDIES FAVOR SUPPLY,
CONVENTIONAL SOURCES

     Federal energy subsidies are tilted radically toward energy
supply (as opposed to efficiency) and conventional energy sources
(as opposed to new sources like wind and solar), according to a
recent study from the Washington, DC-based Alliance to Save Energy.

     Looking at subsidies in 1989, the Alliance found that 58
percent ($21 billion) went to fossil fuels, 30 percent ($11
billion) to nuclear, and 12 percent ($4 billion) to all renewable
energy sources, including hydro, and energy efficiency.

     The Alliance termed the spending pattern it found "poor energy

(Continued to next message)