Comments on: Wind could meet many times the world’s total power demand by 2030, Stanford reseachers say

By: Tom Armstrong

Tom Armstrong — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:16:42 +0000

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: Peter the printer

Peter the printer — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:56:44 +0000

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: mjblake

mjblake — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:57:20 +0000

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: Sean Prophet

Sean Prophet — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:42:32 +0000

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

Sean Prophet — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:27:19 +0000

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: Sean Prophet

Sean Prophet — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:22:11 +0000

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

JAY — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:15:11 +0000

Yup and the gravitational effect of the moon could generate enough electricity to power the earth forever.

By: Robert Pike

Robert Pike — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:41:18 +0000

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

alliwant — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:51:36 +0000

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: Mark

Mark — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:33:03 +0000

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: Casey Thormahlen

Casey Thormahlen — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:49:32 +0000

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: Logic

Logic — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:41:46 +0000

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: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:45:46 +0000

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: Ian Clarke

Ian Clarke — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:35:14 +0000

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: Editor

Editor — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:21:37 +0000

Thanks, fixed

By: alliwant

alliwant — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:16:36 +0000

Editor, please take a look at the first paragraph. Something appears to be miswritten.