I obliquely mentioned Olson's wind energy advocacy, here.
The candidacy inspired my interest in wind technology, as probably the soundest of the clean energy alternative proposals, and until I had seen mention of Olson's beliefs I had not thought much about it. On researching things, there is good cause to believe that unsubsidized wind power can be competitive with large coal combustion plants and other options for energy independence.
Sandia describes the LWST goal as:
The Low Wind Speed Technology (LWST) task supports public-private partnerships for multiple large wind system (turbines over 100 kilowatts) to achieve the goal of 3 cents/kWh in class 4 winds by 2012. The strategy for LWST builds upon industry partnerships initiated under the Wind Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT) and Next Generation Turbine projects. New partnerships to catalyze industry adoption of component technology developments and emerging innovation are being supported through a series of three LWST competitive solicitations. Phase I was initiated in FY 2002, Phase II was initiated in FY 2003, and Phase III is planned for FY 2007. The LWST partnerships are cost-shared efforts with industry that concentrate on three technical areas: 1) concept design studies, 2) component development and testing, and 3) full turbine prototype development and testing.
The photo is from a Sandia website. The NREL's website also discusses the need for "low wind" performance achievements.
It appears that the 3 cents/kWh goal is close, from The Wind Turbine Company's initial efforts at a developing a trouble free commercial size downwind two blade HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine). They have a few patents, with their key patent technology argued to overcome vibration problems with such a layout, and that with the blade and downwind configuration they can make a lower-cost turbine for the same performance as upwind three-blade designs that the Europeans have popularized. (see the opening photo)
The low wind initiative is timely because many of the prime wind farm sites are either built out substantially, or bought up or subject to options, etc., so that less promising sites will need to prove productive after that round of cherry picking.
Blade design and hub-gearbox imporvements promise lower cost or lower maintenance alternatives in the future.
The Sandia and NREL sites are quick returns from even superficial Googling.
Olson in an April 15, 2008 St. Cloud Times op-ed has quite recently sumarized and expounded on the general trend of wind power very soon approaching a cross-over point where it can be competitive, without subsidy or tipping fees or such:
Here we go again. Appropriately enough, an Associated Press article on April Fools' Day reported that another congressional committee just called in another bunch of oil executives this week and chewed them out, this time about $100-a-barrel oil. They do it every year or two and nothing changes. Instead of outrage, we need political courage.
If we want oil companies to do something, Congress has to do something. Tweak the Internal Revenue code, provide tax incentives and loan guarantee funds for sustainable energy. Wind energy is so efficient right now that it's cheaper than coal.
But we've got to get the energy producers over the hump to profitability. And, by the way, if you think wind energy can't possibly work because the wind doesn't blow all of the time, think again. There are existing technologies that efficiently and effectively address this issue.
We're all focused on the pain at the gas pump. But there are bigger numbers to worry about as well. Every day about $1.3 billion goes out of our economy to buy foreign oil. Yes, some of it comes back when other countries buy our assets and government debt. Still, we're sending about $500 billion a year out of the country for oil. That's twice the annual defense budget during the Clinton years.
I'm a bank owner and tax attorney. Economists tell me if we could keep that money at home and recycle it in our economy — six or seven times a year wouldn't be an unreasonable number — that's a $3.5 trillion impact. Keeping even a percentage of that money in our economy would let us get serious about health care for every citizen and other critical issues.
For example, we should be manufacturing wind towers and turbines in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District.
Wind turbines and towers cost about $3 million apiece. Towers are being built in the United States, but the turbines, the huge generators that sit on top of the towers, are built in Denmark, Spain and India and shipped here for $150,000 shipping cost.
The 6th District can be the Silicon Valley of sustainable energy. We have everything we need. The Dakotas and Wyoming have the wind, but not the infrastructure. We're close to the resources and have the skilled work force, infrastructure and energy needs.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman promoted a $900 million federal loan guarantee for a $2 billion coal-burning electrical plant on the Iron Range that would have produced 100 permanent jobs. Wind energy is cheaper than coal. And for only $25 million we could have a wind turbine manufacturing plant in the 6th District, creating 100 permanent, good jobs — economic energy from wind energy.
That's a major excerpt, but see the original item for the full viewpoint.
Others might not find the matter that inspiring, but to me, following up on Bob Olson's unequivocal advocacy, to learn the facts, has been both insightful and inspiring.
Whether he and vision, or Tinklenberg and connections prevail in getting DFL endorsement to oppose Bachmann, I have to say, nothing about Tinklenberg, his taconite tailings promotion, or his frequent mention of Jim Oberstar would be anything I would term either insightful, or inspiring. Hum-drum and banal are more frequent words that come to mind when I think of Elwyn Tinklenberg. But in opposing Michele Bachmann, many have said Tinklenberg should emulate her traits and positions, and the two words fit each of them.