Wind could meet many times the world’s total power demand by 2030, Stanford reseachers say
September 11, 2012
Researchers at Stanford University’s School of Engineering and the University of Delaware have used what they call the “most sophisticated weather model available” to meet many times the world’s total power demand by 2030 — in fact, enough to exceed the total demand by several times, even after accounting for reductions in wind speed caused by turbines.
In related news today, Lawrence Livermore and Carnegie Institute researchers have found that providing such power would not affect global climate.
In their study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and Cristina Archer, an associate professor of geography and physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware, adapted the three-dimensional, atmosphere-ocean-land computer model. known as GATOR-GCMOM. to calculate the theoretical maximum wind power potential on the planet, taking into account wind reduction by turbines.
Their model assumed wind turbines could be installed anywhere and everywhere, without regard to societal, environmental, climatic or economic considerations.
The new paper contradicts two earlier studies that said wind potential falls far short of the aggressive goal because each turbine steals too much wind energy from other turbines, and that turbines introduce harmful climate consequences that would negate some of the positive aspects of renewable wind energy.
The new computer model provides a more sophisticated look than previously possible by separating winds in the atmosphere into hypothetical boxes stacked atop and beside one another. Each box has its own wind speed and weather. In their model, Jacobson and Archer exposed individual turbines to winds from several boxes at once, a degree of resolution earlier global models did not match.
“Modeling the climate consequences of wind turbines is complex science,” said Jacobson. “This software allows that level of detail for the first time.”
The researchers were able to calculate the exposure of each wind turbine in the model to winds that vary in space and time. Additionally, the model accounts for the wind that gets claimed by the turbines. It then calculates the effect of these wind speed changes on global temperatures, moisture, clouds and climate.
Saturation wind power potential
Among the most promising things the researchers learned is that there is a lot of potential in the wind — hundreds of terawatts. At some point, however, the return on building new turbines would plateau, reaching a level in which no additional energy could be extracted even with the installation of more turbines.
“Each turbine reduces the amount of energy available for others,” Archer said. The reduction, however, becomes significant only when large numbers of turbines are installed, many more than would ever be needed. ”And that’s the point that was very important for us to find,” Archer said.
The researchers have dubbed this point the saturation wind power potential. The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available — about seven times the total power demand of all civilization. Hypothetical turbines operating in the jet streams 6 miles up in the atmosphere could extract as much as 380 terawatts.
“We’re not saying, ‘Put turbines everywhere,’ but we have shown that there is no fundamental barrier to obtaining half or even several times the world’s all-purpose power from wind by 2030. The potential is there, if we can build enough turbines,” said Jacobson.
How many turbines to meet half the world’s power demand?
Knowing that the potential exists, the researchers turned their attention to how many turbines would be needed to meet half the world’s power demand — about 5.75 terawatts — in a 2030 clean-energy economy. (Note: 11 terawatts is less than the world’s current 18 terawatts power demand.) To get there, they explored various scenarios of what they call the fixed wind power potential — the maximum power that can be extracted using a specific number of wind turbines.
Archer and Jacobson showed that 4 million turbines, each operating at a height of 100 meters and producing 5 megawatts, could supply as much as 7.5 terawatts of power — well more than half the world’s all-purpose power demand — without significant negative affect on the climate.
“To get there, however, we have a long way to go. Today, we have installed a little over 1 percent of the wind power needed,” Jacobson said.
Jacobson and Archer would site half of the 4 million turbines over water. The remaining 2 million would require a little more than one-half of 1 percent of the Earth’s land surface — about half the area of the state of Alaska. However, virtually none of this area would be used solely for wind, but could serve dual purposes such as open space, farmland, ranchland or wildlife preserve.
Rather than put all the turbines in a single location, Archer and Jacobson say it is best and most efficient to spread out wind farms in high-wind sites across the globe — the Gobi Desert, the American plains and the Sahara, for example.
“The careful siting of wind farms will minimize costs and the overall impacts of a global wind infrastructure on the environment,” said Jacobson. “But, as these results suggest, the saturation of wind power availability will not limit a clean-energy economy.”
Funding sources for this research include the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration High-End Computing Program.

Comments (16)
by Tom Armstrong
I do not think there has ever been any question that there is more than sufficient ‘natural’ energy available to meet all of civilization’s current and future needs. The question is political and economic. Also; why does thorium fueled nuclear reactors never feature in these discussions?
by Sean Prophet
This is an example of actual data from the Cal Iso renewables page. You can see it’s not just wind and solar, but biomass, geothermal, biogas, small hydro. The fluctuations cancel out. For a total capacity (today) of 3200 MW, or the equivalent of 3 nuclear power plants. California is scheduled to get fully 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2020.
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#Renewables
by Sean Prophet
Solomon, wind and solar operate on opposite production curves over the course of the day, with wind blowing strongest at midnight, and the sun shining strongest at noon. So building out both wind and solar together in a smart distributed grid with a small amount of storage capacity eliminates the base load issue–even if wind and solar were to make up the majority of the grid. Not to mention some of the solar plants could be combined cycle with natural gas backup. Base load is often only 35-40% of peak load. So it’s not really a concern. We could double wind and solar capacity, double it again, and double it 3 or 4 more times before we’d get to more than 60-65% of the grid capacity. i.e. this is a total non-issue.
by JAY
Yup and the gravitational effect of the moon could generate enough electricity to power the earth forever.
by Robert Pike
It looks like wind makes a lot more sense than water and solar photo-voltaics. No complex materials (thin, ultrapure silicon cells), no restrictions to just sunny areas (more consistent windy than sunny areas, closer to areas that need the power). No expensive, massive structures (ie water dams) to build that would divert vital resources, and it even looks like it might be better for personal applications (ie home, local community) use. I’m searching soon for wind generator builders to invest in soon!
by alliwant
If turbines and PVs save us from cooking ourselves, I’m in favor. Keep carbon in its place and build around a worldwide grid. What is that worth?
by Casey Thormahlen
The headline is way too strong for the content of the article. By any reasonable measure the researchers did not show that wind could meet power requirements by 2030. The proposal is absurd. Wind power uses a huge amount of land, requires enormous expansion of transmission lines, and has a pitifully low capacity factor. Did the researchers take into account the 15% capacity factor of wind (90%+ for nuclear), transmission losses (10% average), or the amount of Niodium magnets required? This research is going to help fund more wasteful subsidies for a dead end technology.
by Sean Prophet
Casey, rare earths are being quickly replaced in wind turbines. Land used for wind is multi purpose and the turbines increase the tax base substantially. Transmission losses are inherent in any power technology, so scratch that objection. Capacity factor for wind is 25%, not 15%, which is equal to that of many hydropower projects, including the Hoover Dam. You might want to actually learn about a technology before calling it “dead end.” The ultimate dead end is carbon-based thermal power. I don’t care if it’s coal or natural gas, it’s destroying the planet and we have to shut it down.
by GatorALLin
all the videos I seem to see of these giant turbines they are not moving or barely turning. Maybe also the still pictures that of course look like they are not turning also…. I understand this was a “What if” look at turbine power. But, is there any great turbine farms that have paid for themselves x3 anywhere in the world yet? Maybe they have some creative ways to get the cost down, but love to hear some info on how long these take to pay for themselves…. are they a 10 year ROI, or longer? Even if you could figure out a good way to put these up in the ocean, or in the desert you have to connect them to the power grid and that has to add a bit to the overall costs. I like the idea of clean power of course, but love to see some real world examples of where this is really working well and where ROI including all the cost to maintain these are factored in.
by Mark
They’re big and they move or they wouldn’t be being built. If someone takes a video of one that isn’t moving then you’re not going to see it moving. We know very well how much power we can get out of them so that’s sort of a moot point.
As far as getting the cost down there are studies on the efficiency of output as a function of size and they know larger turbines are better. We also know of the economic phenomenon called ‘economies of scale’ such that the more we build the more affordable subsequent batches will be. The larger turbines are also higher where the higher wind speeds are thus subjecting them to the ‘cube rule’ of wind power such that a single doubling of speed increases output by a factor of 8.
Another interesting factor is that conventional power generation has a large upfront cost AND high maintenance and fuel costs. You need to man the coal plants, mine the coal, deal with waste, etc. Wind turbines have an upfront cost comparable to a coal plant, sure, but the long-term costs after that point are low.
It’s not hard to put them in the ocean or desert beyond transmission lines which is not an insurmountable hurdle by any means.
“Windturbines are typically engineered and certified to last 20 years, though many wind farms of the 1980s are still operating at the time of this writing, at least one manufacturer is targeting a 30-year life (Dvorak, 2010), and some PPAs in the United States have had terms longer than 20 years (Bluewater, 2008).”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511005763
A few locations have cited 5-10 year payback periods. A quick search on google scholar will produce results for you.
There are two major problems with wind:
1) Where do you put them?
2) Is there enough wind to make a dent in carbon emissions?
This article suggests 2 is a non-issue. You’ve hinted at a solution to the second. Also, offshore farms are about 10-20% more to install, apparently.
by mjblake
Getting a bit too tied up in the financials of it, which the article was not about. Just the ability. and drive through Oklahoma or other plains states to see hundreds of turbines turning if you doubt the technology.
by Peter the printer
There are two offshore wind farms within sight of where I live on the North Norfolk coast [UK]. They are turning every time I look, I don’t think the wind ever drops at sea. Google Sheringham Shoal and you’ll probably get access to the data you ask for. A ‘good way to put these up in the ocean’? It’s solved, it’s being done, have you been off planet? There are plenty of real world examples, even in America there must be offshore wind farms surely?
by Ian Clarke
By 2030, I would hope that we’d be able to meet our individual energy needs ourselves. With advances in energy efficiency, harnessing, storage, and transference will the global energy requirements still be the issue it is today?
by Logic
I agree. Solar seems the most logical choice, and in combination with the improvements and enhancements in the areas you mention, I don’t understand why giant wind farms are appealing to anyone. Give it 5 years and solar (with tech advances) will make this an historical footnote.
by alliwant
Editor, please take a look at the first paragraph. Something appears to be miswritten.
by Editor
Thanks, fixed