Martin N - I'm sure that you could design wind turbines to operate at the higher wind speeds but at the moment the turbines generally used shut out at those higher winds.. what you are proposing is a vast increase in spending on wind farms for not much additional utility. No matter how you cut it, wind is difficult to use.

With development of power generation and distribution being examined so closely, I wonder why the concept of moving away from expensive transmission lines has not been considered.
Why centralise generation then pay huge infrastructure costs to distribute it to consumers.
Why not increase the effort for local rooftop solar/battery storage, as well as make use of whatever local generating sources such as wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, are available locally, then distribute electricity via existing local street wire networks.
We had a valuable solar selling scheme in place until governments reduced feed-in payments, leaving many homes unable to better their break-even costs and others unwilling to invest in current battery storage systems which tend to have a ten year life before needing recapitalisation.
Increased research and development of localised systems seems one way bout of the problem.

Craig,

FYI, they have already done work on the latest turbines that has considerably widened their operational envelope and in some windy areas these turbines would generate on average nearly 40% of installed capacity. However, as the energy available in wind is proportional to the velocity cubed, low wind velocities are still useless, and the widely fluctuating wind generation has to be balanced with rapidly available other sources.

With respect to DC generation, the problem is that DC generators use carbon brushes that wear down and produce carbon dust in the generator. This requires frequent and expensive maintenance roughly every month. I have looked after DC variable speed drive systems, and would avoid DC generators like the plague.

Thank you SM.

Actually, I just read that again. I only skimmed it previously, looking at the brush comment, which is accurate.

Energy=1/2 mass times velocity squared, not cubed. How do you come up with your claim of a cubic relationship?

Craig,

It's a pleasure.

For a fixed mass e=1/2mv^2, but also the mass passing a particular point is proportional to the velocity giving

Power is proportional to density x v^3