That's right, the U.S. Navy has just installed four 275-foot tall wind turbines at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Apparently, they're the most visible sight in the area - and the Navy's biggest wind power project to date. Details over at Defense Industry Daily.
For maximum fun, the next time you're discussing Gitmo with a liberal, look confused for a minute: "Gitmo, Gitmo... I've heard of that place somewhere. Oh, yeah, that's where the Navy installed 8 million kilowatt-hours/year of wind power to reduce greenhouse emissions!" Keep a straight face throughout, brighten and smile at the end, then keep your expression and look at your counterpart expectantly. If engaged further, return to your subject enthusiastically and begin to recite emissions figures.
Come to think of it, this trick probably works equally well if you're a liberal talking to a conservative.
If you have a chance you should check out our site!
and then the liberal says: "a kilowatt hour isn't a unit of power, silly."
Typo, missed the year.
Wind is a very variable power source, so it strikes me that the fairest way to really get a handle on a wind installation is to give its expected average output over time. Seasonality being what it is, per year seemed best.
I thought I'd heard about something like this sited in Alaska, and voila... looks like I had.
But the Navy is late to this party; the first turbine for Kotzebue was purchased in 1997.
and then the conservative says: "but kilowatt hour /year is a unit of power, silly."
Why dont they put a refinery there?
A refinery at Gitmo would mean a lot of tanker traffic in and out. This increases vulnerabilities that you'd rather decrease, not to mention the security issues of uncleared crews.
Back to wind turbines... I wonder why the Navy didn't design for 100% of load (or more) instead of 25%. The more wind power they've got, the longer they can go on a given supply of diesel (which increases the security of the base); it's not difficult to crank up a diesel at a moment's notice or divert excess wind generation to a dump load.
The reason for 25% is stability.
To go to 100% you need storage.
BTW I looked at the fuel cell submarine bit.
Fuel cells are air (oxygen) breathers.
So how do you supply the oxygen required under water? Cryogenic storage? Not a good idea in a sub.
Then you have to do something with the CO2 produced. Nuke subs have enough trouble scrubbing the air from the crew. An underwater engine? This has got to be big trouble.
BTW the efficiency of PEM cells under load aproximate a diesel/electric drive. Except for the noise.
Underwater this sub is still going to run mostly on batteries. It will be quieter on the surface.
Even with 100% wind you still need DGs for backup.
The DGs would need to be able to supply 100% of the load.
DG efficiency goes down at partial load.
I'm betting that the Navy guys at BuShips have calculated this all out and figured that 25% was where you got the most savings.
In addition running the equipment (DGs) under load is the best way to make sure they are operational and can pick up the load if the wind dies down.
OT on this one, but... it seems you're wrong. I added a couple of sources to back that up - but they can cruise for 2 weeks submerged (rather than 2 days for diesel) and they do store hydrogen and oxgen for the fuel cell - didn't say how.
FYI, the article M Simon is talking about is this DID feature on the Portuguese Navy's new fuel-cell powered diesel attack subs.
Though for my money, today's story about Russia's 2 new nuclear missile subs, with a new kind of missile - and in one case, a new kind of sub - are the more attention-grabbing defense story.