Here's some research I found about best places for wind farms. Looks like most of S America and Asia are unusable. Here in the UK we are spoilt for breeze.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html

And they say that wind power is not viable. Yet more vested interests! (oil company derived propaganda)

Mind you using the figures from your link we would need around 1.25 Million 1.5MW Turbines

I can't help but imagine that the impact on the climate of removing 20% of the energy of the world's winds would not be 'environmentally friendly'. Or am I mis-interpreting that quote?



Indeed. Not exactly cheap... and you'd need plenty of backup conventional plants for the times when there's not enough wind or too much wind.

[weary yawn]

Yes wouldn't it be nice to capture 20% of the wind's power.... but we can't because the energy in wind is thin and thus you need huge machines to capture just a bit of power. Huge machines cost money and require an awful lot of land. And those huge machines do not always deliver, in fact typical production capacity is only around 35% for a wind farm , so you need more huge machines to back up all the huge wind turbines if the wind ain't right.

The IDEA if wind is very nice. Wind, like aluminium, is common as muck, we couldn't use even a fraction of the world's total no matter how hard we tried, but also like aluminium it's expensive to turn it into something refined and useful. And without an effective means of storing very large amounts of electricity, which we do not yet have, the intermittency of wind is a killer.

Not to say wind has no place in the scheme of things, but it won't be the saviour of the world in the face of climate change. I don't think nuclear will be either, because its bl00dy expensive and passes to the future the issue of lethal waste. Imagine if the Ancient Egyptians had used nuclear plant instead of building pyramids, we'd still have to look after their waste today.

Any real solution to CO2 emissions is not known to us at the moment. My hunch would be for a big breakthrough in geothermal, but that's just the best guess I can come up with.

They don't if they're offshore:

http://www.bwea.com/offshore/

This also obviates the NIMBY "eyesore" argument.



I'm afraid this is simply not true. There are as many ways of storing electricity as there are of making it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

http://www.energystorage.org/tech/technolo...echnologies.htm



Apart from fusion you mean?

http://www.iter.org/

With respect, I think you dismissing this too lightly.

1. It is not 20% of the winds power but harnessing 20% of the useful power in usuful location which blow day and night. This is not unrealistic.

2. If this is done on a global scale the diversity factor would mean there should be enough energy for everyone. The study accounted for the intermittancy you sited.

3. If you had bothered to read the article you would have realised that only 1/7 of 20% is required for instantaneous electricty. If cars were powered on hydrogen either directly or using a fuel cell the hydrogen could easily be produced when electricty is most available and stored. (Electricty could also be stored by pumping water up mountains.

4. 1.25 million turbines which are less complex mechanically than the average motor car could easily be mass produced.

5. I agree that to put all your eggs in the wind basket may not be wise, geothermal is proven did you know you / me in the UK could get 6 kw of energy from our gardens for every 1 kw of electricty required to pump the heat transfer fluid? PV solar should have a part to play also. Did you know that if we carpted just 11% of Nevada with solar panels ALL of the US electricty requirments could be met.


With the greatest respect negativity from people like you is major stumbling block.

Imagine a world where energy was non poluting and much cheaper. Our controlling leaders would not like that.

[quote name='malco' date='Sep 30 2005, 08:22 PM' post='203054']
[weary yawn]



Not to say wind has no place in the scheme of things, but it won't be the saviour of the world in the face of climate change. I don't think nuclear will be either, because its bl00dy expensive and passes to the future the issue of lethal waste. Imagine if the Ancient Egyptians had used nuclear plant instead of building pyramids, we'd still have to look after their waste today.

I thought that the point of wind farms was to delay the rate of consumption of our finite fossils fuels - namely decomposed trees. i.e. when the farms produce energy we don't burn the fossil fuel.

This is not strictly the case, electricity suppliers have to keep a certain proportion of conventional plant running in the background even when the wind turbines are producing electricity, in case the wind suddenly drops or there is a spike in demand; however this is at a much lower level than if all the electricity were supplied by fossil fuels alone. See page 17 of this report:

http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF



Wow! That's amazing! Is that per day? I've been looking into getting solar PV panels and/or using a bike-powered generator (such as this: http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_exper...ts_bicycle.html or this: http://www.econvergence.net/electro.htm ) to reduce my reliance on electricity from the grid, and I reckon these three technologies together could make an average household self-sufficient in energy if they bought energy-efficient appliances. Have you got figures for what size of garden you would need, how deep to bury the heat pump elements, etc?

Wind, Solar and Wave should be enough for the world.
What about gravity too (Waterfalls etc).

[quote name='IPOD' date='Oct 1 2005, 12:52 AM' post='203218']
"This is not strictly the case, electricity suppliers have to keep a certain proportion of conventional plant running in the background even when the wind turbines are producing electricity, in case the wind suddenly drops or there is a spike in demand; however this is at a much lower level than if all the electricity were supplied by fossil fuels alone. See page 17 of this report:

[url=http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF]http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF"
[color=#FFFFFF]
IPOD, yes thanks for picking me up on this. What I should have written was "when the farms produce energy we don't burn as much fossil fuel"
A sort of temporary fix until something better comes along.....

Rgds, KT

For gravtiy systems check out http://www.electricmountain.co.uk/

Hydro electric system.. hidden in a mountain in wales and very impressive - instant on demand power. Faster than any other power station in the UK. (it was recently on the discovery mega structures series)

I agree that we should be able to get enough energy from nature.. it's just finding the way to get un-hooked from the current system.

Another link on solar PV hot water heating.. http://www.solarkent.co.uk/ - so very interesting numbers been pulled back on total KwHours during the summer.

"If you had bothered to read the article you would have realised that only 1/7 of 20% is required for instantaneous electricty. If cars were powered on hydrogen either directly or using a fuel cell the hydrogen could easily be produced when electricty is most available and stored. (Electricty could also be stored by pumping water up mountains."

Cars are not powered by hydrogen now and there is no distribution infrastructure to enable it. Yes it could all happen but it takes time and money. A lot of both. Hydrogen is no picnic as regards the engineering to make it practical for the average motorist to fill the car up with it. I doubt we'll see a hydrogen economy. Improved batteries look like a better bet - inherently safer and the distribution infrastructure is already in place. I find it astounding that we still don't have a compact, light means of storing electricity for transportation.

To store electricity by pumping it up mountains is enormously expensive. That is why pumped storage is only used to fill in sudden spikes in demand, like when Crossroads finshes and everybody switches the kettle on. The same is true for compressed air storage in caverns and so forth. We simply don't have a means of cheaply storing large amounts of electricity.

Offshore wind farms are very promising, and quite practical, but still suffer the intermittency problem, and they are expensive, and require an expensive infrastructure to gather the electricity. I am not aware of any national grid that has coped with more than about 25% contribution from wind without suffering stability problems. I accept that it is early days for wind and many of the cost/acceptance/technical issue can be solved. It must be a major element in Britain's future, but only one element, it is no panacea.

Tidal barrages also have great potential in Britain. There will be environmental opposition to a Severn barrage, no doubt justified, so that;'s a tough one.

There aren't any easy, cheap solutions. And I think fusion is just a little far from being demonstrated to be a realistic expectation at the moment.

Here's some new information for the wind energy debate.

Wind research blows away myths
14/11/05
The most extensive study yet of the UK's wind resource, published today, underlines its ability to make a significant contribution to its energy needs and backs up the Government's efforts to harness its potential. The research, conducted by Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute for the DTI, analysed hourly wind speed records collected by the Met Office at 66 locations across the UK since 1970.

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks has said, "The only sensible debate about energy is one based on the facts. This new research is a nail in the coffin of some of the exaggerated myths peddled by opponents of wind power.

"We have a vast and dependable wind resource in the UK, the best in Europe and over the past year there's been the biggest increase in wind power yet, as we move towards our target of 10% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2010.

The key findings are:
- The UK has the best wind resource in Europe. The recorded capacity factor for onshore wind energy in the UK is 27%, greater even than in Germany (15%) and Denmark (20%) where wind farms are currently most widespread.
- Availability of wind power in the UK is greater at precisely the times that we need it - during peak daytime periods and during the winter.
- The UK wind resource is dependable. The likelihood of low wind speeds affecting 90% of the country would only occur for one hour every five years.
- The chance of wind turbines shutting down due to very high wind speeds is exceedingly rare - high winds affecting 40% or more of the UK would occur in around one hour every 10 years and never affect the whole country.
link

Link from The Register.

Full report here.