<DrumBeat: June 1, 2009 The Oil Drum EuroElections 2009 : ALDE>

793 comments on Some Cautionary Thoughts about Wind

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

ccpo on June 1, 2009 - 8:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

18-20,000GW of renewables.

How does that # compare to current use? How much of the current capacity can we keep and still meet emissions targets (CO2 350)?

Cheers

Personal note: I checked out that link and found it quite interesting. There are substantial differences with what I am advocating in that they want to create *new* ecovillages that are basically off-the-shelf. However, the machine shop part of what they are doing fits perfectly with my plan for areas with little or no industrial capacity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on June 1, 2009 - 10:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

18-20 TW is somewhat more than the current 16 TW, of which renewables (mostly large hydro) account for about 9%.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on June 1, 2009 - 9:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A recent estimate found potential for 72,000 GW of wind power alone, worldwide.

That is 2100+ quadrillion BTU of electricity (not fuel) per year.  Humanity currently uses about 400 quadrillion BTU of energy from all sources.  That should tell you how much headroom we have.

(I'm going to regret entering this massive thread so late.  I think I would have regretted it, period.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on June 2, 2009 - 6:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sure, the potential is great. But I guess we still need to address the variability issue and get portable fuel. We could solve it by electrolysis and ammonia production, but what would it cost?

From 55 kWh, you get a kg of hydrogen, and then I guess you need some more to go to ammonia, say 70 kWh in total to get 140 MJ ammonia. Gasoline is 32 MJ/litre, so you'd need 16 kWh for one litre of gasoline equivalent, or 60 kWh for one gallon equivalent. I guess this would be somewhat acceptable, at least to Europeans. However, nuclear and HTE would make this cheaper and more efficient.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on June 2, 2009 - 9:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But I guess we still need to address the variability issue

Redundancy. Overbuild. The wind is always blowing somewhere. With climate going crazy, it'd be stupid not to have a massively distributed and robust energy system.

But, then, we don't appear to be any smarter than yeast.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on June 2, 2009 - 9:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

we still need to address the variability issue

Pumped storage.

As I've mentioned to before, it's a mature, reliable, efficient, simple technology that's already widely deployed to smooth out mismatches in supply and demand of electricity. Storage needs are surprisingly low - a few days - so existing reservoirs could be retrofitted with more generator turbines and lower catchment areas to quickly provide enormous amounts of pumped storage capacity.

Moreover, modest overbuilding of capacity allows a small amount of storage - about 5 days - to reliably provide a region's electricity supply (at least for the case of Ontario, given hourly supply and demand data for 2007). The technical aspects of this aren't a particularly hard problem.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Charles Barton on June 2, 2009 - 10:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Wind combined with pumped storage is more expensive than nuclear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
anyone on June 3, 2009 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nuclear is already combined with pumped storage and gas power plants.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on June 1, 2009 - 9:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Read the articles I wrote :)

Our current energy use is about 15,500GW. Electricity is 2,000GW of that, very little of it renewable, and the renewable chunk mostly hydro with little capacity for expansion.

The current fossil fuel electricity generation has to all go. I mean, just deforestation contributes 18% or so of all greenhouse gases, and we need to drop to 10% of current emissions by 2050 to avoid whacking past 350ppm CO2e (more or less, depending which recent paper you believe). There's just no room in that emissions budget for burning coal to warm supermarkets which are being cooled by open fridges, and stuff like that.

Any serious mitigation plan requires that we abolish burning fossil fuels for electricity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

793 comments on Some Cautionary Thoughts about Wind

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version