← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 18386 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2005-05-25
2005-05-25 04:06 | User Profile
Map Reveals Wind Power Potential By Amit Asaravala
[url]http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67600,00.html[/url]
02:00 AM May. 23, 2005 PT
Wind power could generate enough electricity to support the world's energy needs several times over, according to a new map of global wind speeds that scientists say is the first of its kind.
The map, compiled by researchers at Stanford University, shows wind speeds at more than 8,000 sites around the world. The researchers found that at least 13 percent of those sites experience winds fast enough to power a modern wind turbine. If turbines were set up in all these regions, they would generate 72 terawatts of electricity, according to the researchers. That's more than five times the world's energy needs, which was roughly 14 terawatts in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The researchers readily admit that existing buildings, land rights and other obstacles would make it impossible to set up turbines in every single one of the identified regions. But they point out that even 20 percent of those sites could satisfy world energy consumption as it stands today.
More importantly, the study shows that wind can be a feasible alternative to fossil fuels, said study co-author Cristina Archer.
"There is really a lot of wind out there that can be utilized for electricity generation," said Archer. "The 72-terawatt finding quantifies how much wind power is available.... It's like when people say how much oil is available on a global scale. It doesn't mean all of it will be extracted."
If anything, the 72-terawatt figure is likely to be on the low side. Most of the 8,199 wind-monitoring stations that contributed data to the map are concentrated in highly developed nations. So the researchers had to make broad and often conservative estimates for countries in Africa and Asia, and for other regions.
"They are probably significantly underestimating the total potential," said Christopher Flavin, CEO of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research firm.
For instance, Flavin pointed to China, which several environmental organizations have identified as having great potential for wind power. In contrast, the Stanford map shows only a few locations there having the wind speeds necessary to power a wind turbine.
Of the regions that are well-marked by the map, North America and parts of Northern Europe both have a high number of ideal spots for setting up wind turbines. To date, Northern Europe -- and Denmark in particular -- has made the best use of that potential. Approximately 20 percent of Denmark's energy consumption is fulfilled by wind power, according to the Danish Wind Industry Association.
The United States, on the other hand, generates less than 1 percent of its electricity with wind power.
Archer said it was "ironic and sad" that the United States wasn't doing more, given the resources available.
"But it's not too late," she said. "We can still do it and I really hope we do."
The authors' study is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research -- Atmospheres later this month.
2005-05-25 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Map Reveals Wind Power Potential By Amit Asaravala
[url]http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67600,00.html[/url]
02:00 AM May. 23, 2005 PT
Wind power could generate enough electricity to support the world's energy needs several times over, according to a new map of global wind speeds that scientists say is the first of its kind.
The map, compiled by researchers at Stanford University, shows wind speeds at more than 8,000 sites around the world. The researchers found that at least 13 percent of those sites experience winds fast enough to power a modern wind turbine. If turbines were set up in all these regions, they would generate 72 terawatts of electricity, according to the researchers. That's more than five times the world's energy needs, which was roughly 14 terawatts in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. [/QUOTE]From some of these brilliant scientific types of yours Angley?
I'll tell you, these studies haven't even gotten into one of the biggest sources of unused energy - political hot air, of which a substantial portion is devoted to discussing energy issues. :lol:
Someday someone should give you an energy 101 talk on why wind energy isn't in use, and some of the other substantive issues scientific types can leave out of their talks when the start drifting into politics.
2005-05-25 06:48 | User Profile
Okie,
Kindly fill me in. What is wrong with using wind as the basis of power generation?
2005-05-25 07:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Okie,
Kindly fill me in. What is wrong with using wind as the basis of power generation?[/QUOTE]Succinctly, its that wind power would probably cost about 5 times as much as our existing means of electricity generation. Which is why nobody uses it. You think nobody's ever thought of it before?
Wind power has been around a long time, but its never caught on, for the simple reason without huge government subsidies it isn't viable.
And that's not the only thing. Its also I'd say more damaging on a large scale to the environment than its competitors. Think about it. Of course if you just intend to talk about it that doesn't do anything to our environment, but it also doesn't help our real problem.
The sound engineering treatments to our sickness have already been examined. What people are ooking for now is snake oil - and there's always someone to sell it, if he can see people are desperate enough. Just don't call it medicine .. er science/engineering technology.
2005-05-25 07:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Succinctly, its that wind power would probably cost about 5 times as much as our existing means of electricity generation. Which is why nobody uses it. You think nobody's ever thought of it before? Humor me here, as this is not an issue I've read much about. I don't see why it should be more expensive to have wind spin a turbine than to have the burning of coal spin one. Of course wind doesn't blow constantly or in the same direction all the time, but that might be surmountable via the use of large capacitors.
Wind power has been around a long time, but its never caught on, for the simple reason without huge government subsidies it isn't viable. Maybe that's the case, but I don't see why. Of course, if government subsidies would be necessary to support wind energy, then I'd be against it.
Are you sure pressure from established energy companies isn't the reason why wind power (or nuclear power, or maybe even other alternative energy sources) hasn't been adopted?
And that's not the only thing. Its also I'd say more damaging on a large scale to the environment than its competitors. Think about it. Of course if you just intend to talk about it that doesn't do anything to our environment, but it also doesn't help our real problem. How could wind power possibly be more damaging to the environment than burning fossil fuels? I'm afraid I don't see it.
The sound engineering treatments to our sickness have already been examined. What people are ooking for now is snake oil - and there's always someone to sell it, if he can see people are desperate enough. Just don't call it medicine .. er science/engineering technology.[/QUOTE]This is not some pet issue of mine, Okie. I simply saw this news article and thought it sounded interesting and somewhat promising. If you have good answers to my questions above, then I'm ready to listen.
2005-05-25 08:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Humor me here, as this is not an issue I've read much about. I don't see why it should be more expensive to have wind spin a turbine than to have the burning of coal spin one. Of course wind doesn't blow constantly or in the same direction all the time, but that might be surmountable via the use of large capacitors. Have to be some pretty large capacitors. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if wind is free or not, cause the cost of coal for coal fired genarating plants is only 2% of the cost of your electricity bill. What you're paying for is infrastructure, and the price (just economic) of covering the world with windmills is not cheap.
Maybe that's the case, but I don't see why. Of course, if government subsidies would be necessary to support wind energy, then I'd be against it. Course you don't see why. Its the investors that have made the studies, and voted with their pocketbooks not to fund it. A little basic libertarian economics still comes in handy now and then.
[QUOTE]Are you sure pressure from established energy companies isn't the reason why wind power (or nuclear power, or maybe even other alternative energy sources) hasn't been adopted?[/QUOTE]Oh com'mon. I bet utility companies are one of the most thoroughly goy businesses in the country.
How could wind power possibly be more damaging to the environment than burning fossil fuels? I'm afraid I don't see it. You have to use your imagination a little. Nobody does see it, until its built. Paper projects never hurt any environment.
Start with the impact on migrating and other birds, from covering the country with what in effect are giant scythes. And don't forget the visual impact (a large part of environmental considertations really concern aesthetics)
This is not some pet issue of mine, Okie. I simply saw this news article and thought it sounded interesting and somewhat promising.[/QUOTE] Walter was going on about the Tar Sands, now you. You and Walter, you two peas in the pod :lol:
Seriously it is sort of interesting to see so much popular interest in energy again. Its almost like the 70's when everyone was talking about new energy sources on the horizon and cursing the predatious oil companies.
Something comes to mind though about this sort of issue. Stock markets always say "when the public jumps in, the pro's jump out". I think its the same way with our energy and other technical issues. A little word to the wise - think twice before some slick talking salesman offers you some shares in wind energy incorporated. And be glad your computer doesn't just rely on wind energy.
2005-05-25 13:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Have to be some pretty large capacitors. Yes, of course. Maybe they wouldn't be called "capacitors" anymore, but you get the idea. The charge would have to be stored.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if wind is free or not, cause the cost of coal for coal fired genarating plants is only 2% of the cost of your electricity bill. Only 2%? I didn't know that.
What you're paying for is infrastructure, and the price (just economic) of covering the world with windmills is not cheap. Of course once they are built, you have an endless supply of wind to run them.
Course you don't see why. Its the investors that have made the studies, and voted with their pocketbooks not to fund it. A little basic libertarian economics still comes in handy now and then. I don't see what libertarianism has to do with any of this. (FWIW: I do consider myself something of a libertarian except when it comes to immigration and some other issues.) Then again I've never been into economics, so maybe I'm missing something.
Oh com'mon. I bet utility companies are one of the most thoroughly goy businesses in the country. Jews aren't the only swindlers out there.
You have to use your imagination a little. Nobody does see it, until its built. Paper projects never hurt any environment.
Start with the impact on migrating and other birds, from covering the country with what in effect are giant scythes. And don't forget the visual impact (a large part of environmental considertations really concern aesthetics) Have bird deaths been a problem in Denmark, where many of these windmills already exist? I have trouble imagining that birds would be stupid enough to fly straight into the easily-visible blades of a windmill.
As far as aesthetics, I would not categorize that as an environmental concern. It could certainly be a problem, but probably not much worse than radio towers or even just cities in general.
Walter was going on about the Tar Sands, now you. You and Walter, you two peas in the pod :lol: Huh?? How often do you see me post about issues like this, Okie? Like I said, this is just one article I found on Wired News that I thought was worthy of discussion. It's hardly some big issue to me.
Seriously it is sort of interesting to see so much popular interest in energy again. Its almost like the 70's when everyone was talking about new energy sources on the horizon and cursing the predatious oil companies.
Something comes to mind though about this sort of issue. Stock markets always say "when the public jumps in, the pro's jump out". I think its the same way with our energy and other technical issues. A little word to the wise - think twice before some slick talking salesman offers you some shares in wind energy incorporated. And be glad your computer doesn't just rely on wind energy.[/QUOTE]I don't have anything in particular against the use of fossil fuels as energy sources, but neither do I have a problem with exploring alternatives. There's no need for society to make the jump to alternative energy sources before the time is right.
2005-05-25 14:11 | User Profile
Angler, thanks for bringing this up.
We certainly do need some alternatives to the present energy monopolies.
Wind power, like all other technologies, will be a combination of pluses and minuses.
At present, energy is one of the tools used by the plutocrats to keep the peasants in line, while at the same time letting them pay for their own misery. Case in point: the present war in Iraq, a covergence of the global financial elitists, the corporations that they spawned, joining with the zionuts to enforce their mutual will on the peoples of Iraq, USA ect. Can you say New World Order?
We do have feasable alternatives to the present staus quo in regards to fossil fuels, we just do not have the political power to buck the system...yet.
A link to another thread:[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18023[/url]
[QUOTE]A-21 fuel: Dennis Grover of Reno confirms that German born inventor Rudolf Gunnermann was running two vehicles, one a Monte Carlo, all over Reno for years on A-21ââ¬âan emulsion of water and naptha. He got 40 miles to the gallon (which could be produced for pennies). Vehicles running on A-21 also measured a 60 percent drop in harmful emissions. His fuel worked. Itââ¬â¢s still working.[/QUOTE]
2005-05-25 17:19 | User Profile
Wind is clean but the generators are expensive to build and maintain. The $/kwhr is much, much higher than coal. I understand that great strides have been made in bringing the cost down, but it seems clear they're not there yet. Wind turbines are probably part of the answer.
Cleaner coal technologies is another piece of the puzzle.
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor]Pebble bed nuclear technology[/URL] sounds really interesting. It's cheap and there's no danger of meltdown. The environmental cost is manageable. Some say this technology is the bridge to a hydrogen economy.
But all of that generates electricity and doesn't run our automobiles and trucks (leaving aside the dream of cheap hydrogen made from renewable and clean energy inputs for the moment) and so we're still left with our dependence of foreign oil.
We could get off foreign oil with tar sands and shale sources and stay off (the Americas have more hydrocarbons in those sources the middle east has recoverable oil, but this would involve huge start up costs that would have to be amortized over a long period, meaning that we'd not have really cheap gasoline for a long time.
But then again, maybe that's just based on faulty arithmetic, because the real cost of middle eastern oil (including the enormous costs of maintaining a Navy and Army to defend the sea lanes, not to mention the war in Iraq) is not reflected at the pump. If we include the huge savings from getting off middle eastern oil, then maybe paying current high gasoline prices to extract our own petroleum from out own shale and sand resources would seem more attractive.
2005-05-25 18:08 | User Profile
Nuclear power would greatly expand our economy. The government, assisted by environmentalists and competing energy providers, will make it well nigh impossible to implement. I can just imagine the TV ads: a dark room with Arabic symbols faintly visible, cut to mushroom clouds exploding everywhere. Terrrr!
2005-05-25 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Yes, of course. Maybe they wouldn't be called "capacitors" anymore, but you get the idea. The charge would have to be stored.
Only 2%? I didn't know that.
Of course once they are built, you have an endless supply of wind to run them. Congrats, you have thus saved a maximum of 2 % on your energy bills. Assuming everything else is no more expensive.
[QUOTE]I don't see what libertarianism has to do with any of this. (FWIW: I do consider myself something of a libertarian except when it comes to immigration and some other issues.) Then again I've never been into economics, so maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
Well firstly, you are dealing with the basic libertarian premise - "the market is always right". If one doesn't understand the implications of this statement I don't think he's cognitively engagable in the topic. More specifically what I am basically saying is, the market has a financial interest in this matter, so they pay to do the research and find out the things you at this point do not know, and are a long ways from finding out, to get a professional opinion. Which is obviously different than yours. Personally I have reason to believe as an engineer interested I've followed this a little more closely than you, but everyone has a right to his opinion, and of course engineers have different opinions in some things like everyone else, so you certainly have a right to yours. But to form an educated opinion requires a serious amount of work and body of knowledge. Not just reading one article and saying "aha, this looks intersting,let's go with it".
Without the benefit of such research what you are doing is sort of just for entertainment purposes. The same way fans second guess football coaches' decisions. Which is fine as long as you've bought your ticket price or watch the commercials on TV. Just understand what you're doing and don't start seriously thinking team management needs to call on your expertise.
Now of course we do the same thing in politics. But here we have a good excuse for thinking we can do better than "the experts" their decisions are based on faulty (censored) data (biased/politicized news). The bias of which we spend a lot of time proving.
I don't see really the same factors at work in the energy business - the "market" still works reasonably well. So to switch gears a bit, I wonder if you have any ideas on why you are finding the energy business such fascinating entertainment. What makes you want to now get in and play energy czar? Perhaps politics and discussing the middle east war is getting a little tedious? One tires of banging ones head against the same wall, and looks for some other more constructive use of ones faculties?
You and Walter are both interested in it. Apparently even the computer geeks at Wired. Like I say, its an interesting social phenomena. I think part of the phenomena is that working in football, working in the energy business is a lot less fun than standing in the sidelines cheering or sitting in a bar second guessing everything.
2005-05-25 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]Nuclear power would greatly expand our economy. The government, assisted by environmentalists and competing energy providers, will make it well nigh impossible to implement. I can just imagine the TV ads: a dark room with Arabic symbols faintly visible, cut to mushroom clouds exploding everywhere. Terrrr![/QUOTE]
Repeat after me
"No Nukes is Good Nukes"
"Better Active Today, Than Radioactive Tomorrow"
"Would You Hug Your Child With Nuclear Arms?"
Face it - nuclear power just doesn't have that warm fuzzy feeling. People don't want to put nuclear power stations up in their backyard, write songs about them, or name their children after them.
2005-05-25 20:59 | User Profile
Well firstly, you are dealing with the basic libertarian premise - "the market is always right". If one doesn't understand the implications of this statement I don't think he's cognitively engagable in the topic. More specifically what I am basically saying is, the market has a financial interest in this matter, so they pay to do the research and find out the things you at this point do not know, and are a long ways from finding out, to get a professional opinion. Which is obviously different than yours. Personally I have reason to believe as an engineer interested I've followed this a little more closely than you, but everyone has a right to his opinion, and of course engineers have different opinions in some things like everyone else, so you certainly have a right to yours. But to form an educated opinion requires a serious amount of work and body of knowledge. Not just reading one article and saying "aha, this looks intersting,let's go with it". Dude, I don't even really have a fully-formed opinion on this subject yet. I try not to form an opinion on a subject until I know enough about it to do so. I thought this article made wind power sounded promising, but that doesn't mean I'd be willing to rush right in and embrace it (if it were up to me).
BTW: Do you work for a coal company or something? You almost sound emotional about this subject.
Without the benefit of such research what you are doing is sort of just for entertainment purposes. The same way fans second guess football coaches' decisions. Which is fine as long as you've bought your ticket price or watch the commercials on TV. Just understand what you're doing and don't start seriously thinking team management needs to call on your expertise. Of course it's for entertainment purposes. We're not here at OD to make any national energy policy decisions. We're just chit-chatting about stuff -- nothing more.
2005-05-25 21:17 | User Profile
People don't want to put nuclear power stations up in their backyard, write songs about them, or name their children after them.
"Hi, this is my daughter, Fast Breeder Reactor 6 and say hello to my boy, Diablo Canyon 2."
2005-05-25 21:46 | User Profile
[quote=Steamship Time]Nuclear power would greatly expand our economy. The government, assisted by environmentalists and competing energy providers, will make it well nigh impossible to implement. I can just imagine the TV ads: a dark room with Arabic symbols faintly visible, cut to mushroom clouds exploding everywhere. Terrrr!
Well that, and I don't particularly think Affirmative Action and nuclear power mix very well.
I know things hardly ever go wrong with a nuke plant, but when they do, they really go wrong.
2005-05-25 22:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]"Hi, this is my daughter, Fast Breeder Reactor 6 and say hello to my boy, Diablo Canyon 2."[/QUOTE]You know what's really neat about them, we don't have to buy them glow in the dark bracelets! :biggrin:
2005-05-25 22:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]BTW: Do you work for a coal company or something? You almost sound emotional about this subject.[/QUOTE]And what if I did? You make it sound like being a sewage sludge salesman or something :lol:
Hey that's engineer's motto
"Earth First (We'll Strip Mine Other Planets Later)"
"A toxin in every bite, a toxic waste dump in every backyard" :biggrin:
2005-05-26 03:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Well that, and I don't particularly think Affirmative Action and nuclear power mix very well.
I know things hardly ever go wrong with a nuke plant, but when they do, they really go wrong.[/QUOTE]
The big advantage of pebble be reactors (see link above) is that they can't melt down.
Check out the linked article, it's quite interesting.