That is theoretical peak capacity, for actual wind production divide by ~10. If you look at aggregate power actually generated, it's a drop in the bucket. In some places, at some times, it can be a useful kicker. As a solution to, well, anything, it just ain't gonna work. Not to mention that nobody knows what the effect will be on climate if we actually figured out how to suck mass quantities of energy out of the atmosphere. Only thing we know for sure is that there *would* be a climate change effect.
Well, it's actually nameplate power, not theoretical. As for production variability, that's largely due to the limited size of most wind farms. Studies have been done that indicate with the appropriate dispersion of windfarms into a common grid the average could go as high as 50% On aggregate the U.S. number is small, but in some countries the contribution from wind is well into the double digits. I agree, none of the green technologies is viable by itself, and some are going to be more productive in some areas than others. But, overall, a combination of solar (thermal and PV), wind, hydro and geothermal could provide all our needs and then some. The average V80 in a 25mph wind absorbs 2% of the latent wind energy. No way that does more harm than the tons of carbon that gas, diesel, NG, bio and other combustibles put into the atmosphere every day...
Maybe so, but I always thought the sun was rather direct in the way it distributes visible light... Anyway, for residential use I agree and have been researching several green technologies for my house. I'm pretty much settled on using both a wind turbine and solar PV array for electricity and a ground source heat pump heating/cooling.
Obviously biomass farming is sustainable because farming has been sustainable for 1000s of years.... Even more so today because farming methods and soil maintenance capabilities have and will dramatically improve.... However....nothing is more reliable than sunshine.....and just as Buffett's counterpart recently discussed....the future of mankind rests on the ability to store and use energy from the sun.... The sun is used indirectly for biomass.... Heat transfer is certainly more direct....
Wonder how many offshore wind mills we could have built for the 10+ billion wasted on seeking Fusion Energy. Something whish has always been 50 years into the future, for the last 50 years.
You gotta be kidding me. Read just ONE independent study instead of spouting wind energy industry propaganda. You're actually mentioning FPEL, which is really ironic considering what the environmental results were from their wind projects and the lessons they had to learn the hard way. Wind is not very viable on site, it is best suited for isolated areas where the environment is relatively bare and unnaffected. Which means generation of power that has to be transmitted a long distance. Denmark had quite an experience with this, the wind farms start pumping energy into the grid that sometimes has to travel to nowhere and hence gets dumped at rock bottom rates to its neighbors. If anything should be compared to Ethanol, it's wind energy. Solar is simply expensive upfront, but with the right programs, it can be a serious quality investment. Unlike wind, in some states & nations, solar is a cash cow.
Solar electric is easier to implement on structures. A lot easier. Solar themal is best used as power plants.
http://www.undeerc.org/wind/literature/Regional_Wind.pdf Do me a favor and dispute the data represented in that paper that indicates that a geographically dispersed, commonly connected system of wind farms reduces the variability of production, which translates to a more reliable resource. No, I wasn't referring to FPL specifically. Interesting that the first two links returned for "FPL wind energy environmental impact" seem to indicate positive environmental and economic impact to their wind projects. I'm open to reading some links of your own that dispute it. All green technologies suffer from production variability at a given site. And, that's the point of what I've said; the variability of wind power production is inversely proportional to the geographic dispersion and interconnection of wind farms. Here's a list of the 101 cities with the most sunshine,check out the google map in the link: http://www.city-data.com/top2/c474.html Now, check out the map for the 101 cities with the lowest average sunshine: http://www.city-data.com/top2/c475.html And, the map of the 101 most densely populated areas: http://www.city-data.com/top2/c544.html Obviously, the best place for solar thermal is not anywhere's near where most of the population is located, and worse, they're locations that are generally sub-optimal for solar power. Now, contrast that with the list for the highest average wind speed: http://www.city-data.com/top2/c467.html Wind is not nearly as centralized as solar is, they're somewhat closer to the more densely populated areas too. And, for completeness, here's the list of the lowest average wind areas: http://www.city-data.com/top2/c468.html If anything, all of this points to the need for a complimentary and geographically dispersed system of solar and wind power. Anyone arguing for one to the exclusion of the other has some sort of axe to grind... You're absolutely correct, Denmark has production variability issues. Denmark is also a little over 16MM square miles while the states in the region listed in the paper I linked to cover 296MM square miles. In other words, Denmark is about 5% of that region. Dunno, sure looks like Denmark suffers from exactly what that paper concludes -- wind farms in a small area are going to suffer from higher variability in power output then those that are dispersed over a wide geographic area and are interconnected.
Do you really think putting up large turbines in the middle of populated areas will do more good than harm? Wind projects have been blocked due to residents refusing to deal with the issues of a wind turbine. Then there are issues with the environment, like the birds, the animals, even insects. Large turbines produce sonic booms, is that something you think even rural residents want to deal with? That's the key difference between solar & wind. Solar can just cover the roof without affecting the neighborhood. Wind has to be limited to small scale in populated regions. I appreciate the link, it's not bad but it is limited. The reports I have read get much more extensive. You should research the feedback about the wind farms in California. The found out that the projected generation can't be met because of the heated air that rises from the ground during hot weather. Yet another complication with Wind Energy. Sorry, but it is still an inferior renewable energy source. Unless its costs come down to rock bottom and combined with a storage technology, it's not that viable. It's not a good investment either, the economics are weak, mainly due to maintenance & repair.