Brett Close
South Eugene High School
Eugene, Oregon

The Northwest is growing rapidly. This growth includes growth in energy demand. But the Northwest is also a place of great care for the environment. Many residents of the Northwest are not is favor of increasing pollution in order to meet these energy needs, nor are they in favor of expanding the use of nuclear energy.

This sets up a dilemma. Traditionally, earth-friendly energy sources have been more expensive than energy sources that have a greater negative environmental effect associated with them. The challenge then becomes, can the Northwest’s increasing energy needs be met by environmentally sound and sustainable practices and still be economically viable? The answer is yes. The key is a combination of wind power and conservation to augment the existing energy infrastructure.

The most common method for generating electricity is by magnetic induction. This involves turning a coil of wire in a magnetic field so that the field varies, creating a voltage and an alternating current (AC). To do this, the coil is attached to a turbine that is turned. The turbine can be turned by the expansion of steam, as in the case of fossil fuel generation, by flowing water or by the wind.

Wind power works in the "turn the turbine" fashion, but rather than heating water for steam to turn the turbine, the windmill is set outside and wind turns it. Most windmills require a wind speed of about eight to twelve miles per hour to overcome internal resistance in the windmill (Maloney 10/16). When one observes an area that has wind power stations on it, some of the mills may be moving without wind. This is because it takes time for the wings of the windmill to begin moving once the wind speed reaches the optimum level, so the wind mill turns its wings using some of the energy it has created so that less wind time will be wasted.

Wind power is essentially clean. There are no fossil fuels that are burned in the process and thus no harmful emissions. This makes it very attractive to the Eugene community. The abundance of wind is an asset. Wind power is also very cheap to produce once the mills have been built and placed.

Wind power has some drawbacks that have curtailed development. There can be some negative effects on the birds that fly through areas of wind generation. Unfortunately, wind power is not always reliable. If the wind isn’t blowing, no energy can be generated from it. Roughly 100 times as much land is required for wind to generate the same amount of energy as a gas generator.

New technology has helped to mitigate some of the drawbacks of wind power. One of the most important new developments in wind power technology is the increase in the size of the generator on the windmill (Maloney 10/16). The increase has allowed the propellers to turn more slowly so wind power has a less negative impact on the local wildlife. The increased generator size also allows for fewer windmills to generate the same amount of power, decreasing the large amount of land necessary to generate wind power and the number of roads that must be built. Also, the wings are lighter and stronger, made from the same material as sailboat hulls, this makes it easier for the wings to turn, and harder for them to break (Maloney 10/16). Another improvement in the technology is the decreased size of the electronic control apparatus. This is essentially the computer that runs the mini-power plant. The size of electronic power apparatus has shrunk from the size of two office desks to about the size of an attache case (Maloney 10/16). These technologies have combined to bring the price of wind power to half what it cost five or six years ago, to three and a half to four cents kWh (Maloney 10/16).

The wind is completely free of cost, so why isn’t wind used for all our power needs? There are two main factors to think about when looking at the cost of building any power plant: the fixed cost and the variable cost. The fixed costs are the ones that do not change and are the same, whether or not the plant is operating. The main fixed cost is the cost of construction, including the purchase of land and the building of roads, but also includes work crews. Wind has a higher fixed cost than fossil fuel generation sources (Maloney 10/16). Variable costs are those that change and include operation and maintenance costs and fuel costs. Because wind uses no fuel, it has much lower variable costs.

Other factors to consider when considering the building of a power plant include the discount rate, the capacity factor of the power source, the inflation rate, the interest

rate, annual escalation rate, the price of land, the price of energy and what the price of energy will be. The discount rate is a factor that assumes money is more useful now than it will be in the future, because if money is just sitting in an investment it cannot benefit the owner, whereas if money is spent, it does. Jim Maloney of EWEB uses an 8.15% discount rate in his cost projections (10/30). The capacity factor is the percent of rated capacity a given source is likely to be producing at any given time. Wind is assumed to have a 33.0% capacity factor. Inflation and interest are important because a large amount of capital is sunk into a huge project such as building a power plant, and so a large amount of money must be borrowed. The annual escalation rate tells how much the variable costs are believed to rise each year, due to wear and tear and aging. The price of land is a major factor in wind power because so much land is used. Land is usually rented for wind power (Maloney 10/30). The price of energy and the future price of energy factor into the equation because an investment in a power plant is only good if the power plant can produce power for less than or equal to what it can be sold for.

Utilizing all these factors, Maloney has determined that a wind power generation site with 62 turbines rated at 1.3 MW can be cost effective. If the life of the project is 30 years and the life of the bond is 20 years, the net levelized cost of the energy is $45.19 per MW or 4.519 cents per kWh. See Appendix II for tabulations.

In summary, wind power can be cost effective, but a society run completely on wind would stop whenever the wind stopped blowing. For this reason, wind power must be part of an energy portfolio, much like a stock portfolio, to maintain viable energy sources at all times (Maloney 10/30).

Increased conservation is the most ideal solution to a shortage of energy. Conserving energy saves money because less energy is bought. It can bring down the price of energy when implemented on a large scale because of decreased demand. It has virtually no negative economic effects. Here we will examine small scale conservation measures that are easy to implement.

There are two main ways to conserve energy. One can either simply use less by not running appliances and turning off lights, or one can buy more energy efficient appliances and lights. Both can be very effective, and both have drawbacks. There is a limit to what can be cut back and still be comfortable: most people want to have lights on when it gets dark, heat when it gets cold and like to take warm showers. In terms of more efficient appliances, one has to buy them in order to have them, and that can be expensive. The benefits of these conservation measures will be discussed below.

According to the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC), 22.4% of energy used in the residential sector is for heating water which is primarily for washing clothes and taking showers (D-15). This means there are three main areas in which improvements can be made: the heating of the water, the amount used in showering and the amount used in clothes washing.

If a water heater is not yet old enough to be replaced, there are still ways to save energy. One easy way to save energy is to place the water heater on top of a piece of insulation, such as a piece of firm styrofoam. This reduces the heat lost to the ground from the water heater and keeps water hot for longer, which means that less energy has to be used to reheat water. The cost for the insulator estimated by the NWPPC was $12, and the estimated energy savings were 70 kWh per year (G-76). By these estimates, it would take about three years to recover the cost from the initial $12, and the life of such an insulator is at least as long as the life of a typical water heater, 12 years (G-77). Another way to save energy is to wrap the water heater in an insulating blanket. An insulating blanket, estimated by the NWPPC to cost $20, saves an estimated 96 kWh per year and lasts for 12 years. This would take about four years to recover the cost.

If the time is right to purchase a new water heater, there are good reasons to buy an energy efficient model. The NWPPC uses a figure called an efficiency rating that describes the energy efficiency of an appliance. They have estimated that 50 kWh per year are saved for every increase of .01 in efficiency factor (G-76). An ideal model has an EF of .93. The NWPPC estimates that the cost of a .93 EF model is $50 more than that for a .86 EF model. The difference in EF between these two is .07, which correlates to saving 350 kWh per year. This is a savings of $21 per year, requiring only two and a half years to regain the extra money through savings.

Another good way to save money is with a front loading clothes washer. Front loading washers use 60% less energy and 40% less water than traditional clothes washers (Schwartz). Changing the setting on the washing machine from warm water to cold water is a very good way to decrease energy use, but even with the warm water, these machines can save a lot on energy. They also use less soap, have a faster spin cycle that removes moisture from clothing, reducing drying time, and are gentler on clothing because there is no central agitator to twist the clothing (Northway). All these result in saving money.

Lighting accounts for only 5.0% of residential energy use (NWPPC D-15), but it is an area in which it is easy to reduce use. The most simple and effective way to limit energy use from lights is to turn off lights in unoccupied rooms. This has a double (an even sometimes triple) benefit when lights are turned off. Turning off the lights in a room that has four 100 watt light bulbs for an extra hour per day amounts to a savings of .4 kWh per day and about 12 kWh per month, amounting to 72 cents per month, in just one room for one hour per day. But if the light wasn’t being used anyway, this is 72 cents gained without any sacrifice. Light bulbs also have a limited life-span. An average incandescent bulb lasts for about 1000 hours, so this one hour turn off period has given an extra 365 hours for each light bulb, which means fewer light bulbs have to be bought. The third benefit is that about 90% of an incandescent light bulbs energy is given off as heat, not light. This means that during the summer having a light bulb turned on just increases the amount that an air-conditioner may be used.

More efficient bulbs, namely compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are another way to reduce energy use on lighting. A CFL works in roughly the same way as an incandescent bulb, but rather than using a wire for a filament, there are tubes filled with mercury gas. When a large voltage is applied to the tubes, a current starts that excites the mercury molecules so they give off light (Northway).

CFLs use about one fourth as much energy as incandescent bulbs in the same time period. They also last about ten times as long. So for a 100 W incandescent versus a 27 W CFL, there can be great savings over the life of a bulb. The CFL lasts for about 10,000 hours, whereas incandescents only last 1000. At 6 cents per kWh, the CFL costs $16.20 for energy and $9 for the bulb with an EWEB coupon. An incandescent would come out to $60 for energy in the same time period and $10 for the ten bulbs. This means a savings of $44.80 over the life of the bulb. According to EWEB’s "You’ve Got the Power" pamphlet, this saves the energy equivalent to 46 gallons of oil. There is also the hidden benefit of fewer bulbs thrown into the landfill. In addition to all the previously mentioned benefits of conservation, there is a less obvious advantage. When energy is purchased most of the money leaves a community. But with spending on conservation, the money all goes to local businesses and thus economically enhances the community.

Imagine with, Laurie Power of EWEB, a vision of the future: Each home or building will have a PV cell. Each home or building will be self sufficient in energy production. There will be no power lines, no more building of dams, no more burning of fossil fuels, no more arguing over land for natural gas plants or pollution from these plants. EWEB would provide maintenance, not power.

Technological and economic considerations make this vision something for the future, not the present. Yet it is a very possible future. A bridge is needed from the present to the future. This bridge is a comprehensive use of wind and solar power and conservation. This bridge does not rely on fossil fuels. It is earth friendly and cost effective, and the Northwest is primed to support the industry that will build this bridge (ìThe Northwest CouldÖî). All that is needed is the will to be proactive, a little help from the government and of course the right weather.