Map Reveals Airstream Potential
Amit Asaravala 05.23.05 | 2:00 AM 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 as 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.
I was given this link in a debate on nuclear power as a counter to my claim that wind power alone is not enough to supply the world's energy needs now or in the future. The thing is, why haven't I heard of this before?
The implication by my opponent is that nuclear power has been rendered completely unnecessary, and I'm having a hard time seeing the flaw in this reasoning. I notice that some other members of this support support nuclear power, what are your opinions?
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society - Karl Marx Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Nova Mundi, my laughable attempt at an original worldbuilding/gameplay project
This is like saying that you can run everything on solar. That's technically true, but you can't make or deploy that many solar panels in anything resembling a practical fashion, and the places where you can effectively use them are not necessarily close enough to the places where you'll use the power.
The fact is that you need thousands of wind turbines to equal a single nuclear reactor (not a whole plant; just one reactor).
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:This is like saying that you can run everything on solar. That's technically true,
Only if you have an energy storage system that can cope with a) nights and b) long stretches of cloudy days / bad weather. Current technologies to do this would be several times more expensive than the solar panels themselves, which already aren't cheap. The situation with wind (particularly onshore wind) is even worse, particularly given that in the UK we've found that the predicted power output of onshore wind installations has been consistently overestimated (~30% of the time at rated power output, as opposed to ~15% in practice).
And did anyone bother to try to count how much would it cost to turn totally to wind power? Because there is also an enormously powerful current going trough the Gibraltar. Put a dam there and be done with it.
The hypothetical price alone is insane, let us not even mention the consequences.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
How much would it cost to build enough nuclear reactors to get us off oil? Although I suppose that question is dependant on what proportion of power we can reasonably derive from renewables.
A lot of people, especially those opposed to nuclear power, seem to be under the impression that you have to choose between renewables and nuclear, which to me stinks of a false dichotomy.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society - Karl Marx Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Nova Mundi, my laughable attempt at an original worldbuilding/gameplay project
Actually, from where I see it, there is no choice. We are going to be dependent on nuclear power, and nobody will be protesting when the lights will go out. It's not that renewables are totally worthless, but there is way too much wankery and bullshit surrounding them that is true.
Oh and to the original poster:
The implication by my opponent is that nuclear power has been rendered completely unnecessary, and I'm having a hard time seeing the flaw in this reasoning. I notice that some other members of this support support nuclear power, what are your opinions?
I don't have the time to look it up for you, but look around in these forums. There is a guy that thinks that wind power would replace nuclear, but it turns out that its actually far more expensive to build a wind power plant then a nuclear one. References are citied. It's one of the older topics. I'm sorry I have to have you search like this, but I have no time. http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=33011
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Darth Wong wrote:
The fact is that you need thousands of wind turbines to equal a single nuclear reactor (not a whole plant; just one reactor).
That might have been true ten to fifteen years ago, but now few new wind turbines produce less then 1.5MW peak output (2MW is very popular), and a German firm has already built a number of 5MW wind turbines, which are ironically used to power North Sea oil rigs. The things are about 190 meters tall with 126 meter diameter blades, but I know I don’t care what an eyesore they make. The plan is to install 3GWs worth of them by 2010. A single prototype of a 6MW wind turbine also exists, but I’ve not heard of any plans to build more of them.
Obviously the wind turbine don’t always produce peak power, but even half power would do fine to match a thousand or less turbines to a nuke plant. The real problem of course is that many of these ideal wind condition areas are just too remote to be useful. That said it’s stupid to think any one technology will solve world energy problems, but wind power does have its part to play. Nuclear reactors are great, I love them, but I expect they’ll suffer all sorts of hurdles both from licensing and from limited production rates even in the countries willing to make major investments.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Sea Skimmer wrote:That might have been true ten to fifteen years ago, but now few new wind turbines produce less then 1.5MW peak output (2MW is very popular), and a German firm has already built a number of 5MW wind turbines, which are ironically used to power North Sea oil rigs. The things are about 190 meters tall with 126 meter diameter blades, but I know I don’t care what an eyesore they make. The plan is to install 3GWs worth of them by 2010. A single prototype of a 6MW wind turbine also exists, but I’ve not heard of any plans to build more of them.
The fact that a turbine is rated for a certain power output does not mean that its realistic output will approach that figure, or even half of it. Hell, Toronto's demonstrator turbine is a 750kW model and it averages 150kW.
Obviously the wind turbine don’t always produce peak power, but even half power would do fine to match a thousand or less turbines to a nuke plant. The real problem of course is that many of these ideal wind condition areas are just too remote to be useful. That said it’s stupid to think any one technology will solve world energy problems, but wind power does have its part to play. Nuclear reactors are great, I love them, but I expect they’ll suffer all sorts of hurdles both from licensing and from limited production rates even in the countries willing to make major investments.
I'm not against wind turbines per se, I'm just against the unrealism of the more wide-eyed optimists.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Found some good topics. There is some "greeny-hatred" there, as greenies are not very popular among nukees, as one is practically making the other jobless. But points and references are given:
Darth Wong wrote:
The fact that a turbine is rated for a certain power output does not mean that its realistic output will approach that figure, or even half of it. Hell, Toronto's demonstrator turbine is a 750kW model and it averages 150kW.
Minimal wind speed for the thing to make 1MW is 6.5m/s, full output comes at 12.5m/s. The thing apparent won’t even try to operate below 3.5m/s. Because of this its only intended for offshore applications, where wind speed tends to be very constant at these kind of values. Wind turbines on land are less reliable, but on land or sea the higher the turbine, the higher the sustained wind speeds get.
The best use I see for wind farms is to fill up pumped storage hydropower stations, which can then be used to supply power at peak demand, reducing our need for five billion dollar nuclear reactors.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Seems that in addition to the wind/solar/nuclear/hamster-wheel/whatever generators, we need a global power-distribution network a la Buckminster Fuller's World Game.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Sea Skimmer wrote:The best use I see for wind farms is to fill up pumped storage hydropower stations, which can then be used to supply power at peak demand, reducing our need for five billion dollar nuclear reactors.
This is the most cost effective solution for bulk power storage, but the number of available sites is limited; and the best ones tend to be in wilderness areas that cause environmentalists to scream and wail about habitat destruction (along with the landowners demanding ridiculously high compensation for having to move).
