What sort of wind-farm power from 100 acres?

NREL: Power Technologies Energy Data Book - Wind Farm Area Calculator

It seems easier however to just look at windfarms made and make an average. This site has farms' output: Area Used by Wind Power Facilities [AWErg]

Taking MW's (in KW's) and dividing by acres, I get between 10KW per acre to 28KW per acre. Which makes sense depending on turbine density and of course the size/power-output of the turbine itself.

 

Windmills/area is fairly set; production per windmill is mostly determined by height assuming a decent site was chosen. IIRC good production is about 3 - 4 kwh*year per installed watt. For comparison, good PV production in the SourthWest US is about 2 kwh*year per watt installed.

 

I think the main problem with using historical data is that it includes blades of varying lengths and sitings at different heights. E.g, while average historical data sets wind farm capacity at 15-20%, new farms reach 40% of nameplate capacity. Translated, 40% capacity is 3.5 kwh*year per nameplate watt.

 

Where is it and what is the the land use. Wind Farms are quite unlike solar sights, as the land use. These things are often not deployed as close as possible to each other to allow the other land uses, but the closer they are the less expensive they are to cable. The most deployed turbines are 1.5 MW, and IIRC need to take up at least 37 acres. You could probably fit 5 on your land, assuming there isn't a wind farm next to you, giving you 7.5MW or around 22 Gwh/year if you get 1/3 utilization. There are more 2.5 MW turbines going up now, GE has a max 2.75 MW for land based, and I'm not sure the max for Siemens. Larger turbines are available for offshore. Figure that in a place with good wind you will get 1/3 of the utilization, but can only guaranty 15% for peak power. That means a 2.5MW turbine should give you an average 20 Mwh/day or around 7 Gwh/year. The bigger turbines are taller and quieter.

 

IIRC the largest turbines for land based are 5 MW, but I think 3MW is probably more typical of new installations.

Here is a list of 6 MW, the biggest and most bad-nice person. Some are still prototypes as of writing.

 

As in real estate, the important thing is location, location, location. Until you know the location and have wind data, all the other kW/acre data is close to meaningless.

There are many windpower maps available online. Here's one. There are others and they don't all agree in detail but tend to point out windy and still areas fairly well.
Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States
Height above ground is also very important

 

Hey,

You can use Hummer 3KW and upwards intelligent wind turbines to build the wind farm. It provides detail specifications on it official site. Efficient contact Skype: eleven-china.

Eleven

 

You actually thinking of doing this Bob?
I'm jealous... I would love to do that!

Alan.. Sent with Tapatalk 2

 

I would think a 100 acres could support a lot of turbines provided you have the Capitol to get rolling.

I'm not sure how it's any if he neighbors. Business what you do with your land "parents".

If he doesn't like it I'm sure you can think of a price to sell it to him for.. He either puts up or shuts up!

Alan.. Sent with Tapatalk 2

 

No bob is right, its about 5 of the big ones. You don't want them too close together. 5 produce a great deal of power in kansas

 

Wow, those are only 6k a piece?

Alan.. Sent with Tapatalk 2

 

A 1.5 MW turbine, if you include installation and supporting infrastructure is going to run around $3M. Those little $6k ones probably cost that proportionally less, but will be less efficient.

 

What are the regulations about selling power to a utility?

Surely much the simplest option would be leasing the site to a utility to let them erect and maintain their own turbines.

 

Whatthehell does a geophysicist know about electric power distribution, other than what his clients tell him? He sounds like a shill to me.

 

I think this was the key part of that article -

That's where the trama really is. The price of energy went up so much from 2008, because of the price of coal electricity, not wind. But those pushing to build more coal, which is extremely risky financially don't want wind. Why? Coal needs to pay to stay on at night when the wind blows for free. When you are trying to force rate payers to pay for a new coal plant, the economics look really bad today if more wind is being built.

There are issues of upgrading the grid for wind. As such I can't get upset about the other parts of the request.

I don't like them getting rid of the 20% standard, but not much wrong with delaying 15% a few years out, as long as its in the near future. The writer seemed to get the years all confused though.

More wind also means you will end up in the long run closing down more coal, and likely using more natural gas. That diversifies the kansas energy mix, which should give it more stable energy prices along with fewer health problems from cleaner power.

Top 10 Reasons Not To Use Coal

Its hard to deny the coal people are going against the wishes and interests of the kansas voter.