Sign in / up

back to article Look out! Peak wind is coming, warns top Harvard physicist

The realistic limits on wind power are probably much lower than scientists have suggested, according to new research, so much so that the ability of wind turbines to have any serious impact on energy policy may well be in doubt. Even if money were no object, the human race would hit Peak Wind output at a much lower level than …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is a classic problem with windmills.

      "Politicians dont like nuclear purely becuase it is politically unacceptable so wind has been deemed the way forward"

      In the UK nuclear is actually very acceptable. The majority of the electorate are quite happy with the technology, and all the proposed locations for new ones are in areas where there are already nuclear facilities, and where the jobs would be welcome. The reason wind is being rolled out in this way is simply because energy policy (which originates more from the civil servants of DECC than from brain dead politicians) is formulated by faceless cretins who subscribe to unscientific Friends of the Earth nonsense about what constitutes "renewable". The amount wasted so far on solar and wind in the UK is about a billion quid on solar PV, and around £20bn spent and committed (ie under construction) on wind. Having run out of suitable sites in the UK, the criminals of DECC have signed an agreement to pay for wind farms carpeting the Irish Republic.

      For that £21bn (and rising) we could have built four nuclear reactors, or around thirty big CCGTs. The gas turbine solution would have been able to replace the majority of all existing UK electricity generation with state of the art high efficiency gas plant. Instead we've got a few crappy windmills providing at most 3% of UK electricity when it suits them.

      0 0
  2. ForthIsNotDead
    FAIL

    Codswallop

    "Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter."

    So his estimate varies by +-100%. That's not really telling us very much is it?

    0 0
    1. Benjol
      Reply Icon

      Re: Codswallop

      Of course it is: it's telling us that even putting the biggest error bars on possible, we can't get anywhere near the predicted 4+W/m2 .

      4 0
    2. itzman
      Reply Icon

      Re: Codswallop

      its telling us a lot actually.

      -50% + 100% is a lot better than out by three to four orders of magnitude,. which is basically what renewable protagonists usually are.

      0 0
  3. Potemkine Silver badge

    And?

    I see El Reg's pro-oil dedicated writer continues his fight for fossils fuels *über alles*

    So, wind would not be sufficient enough to cover all our needs? What's the matter? We'll need several sources of energy anyway, this one has many advantages so why shouldn't we use it?

    0 0
    1. itzman
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: And?

      Why do we need several sources of energy?

      Do we need several different shapes of wheels?

      Do aircraft fly on fermented bat shit, solar panels or rubber bands and clockwork?

      All the above are possible, but the fact remains that for sound physical engineering and economic reasons they all fly on one. Hydrocarbon fuel, mainly kerosene, with a few light aircraft operation on AvGas.

      Electrical power is best generated by using steam or gas turbines fuelled by coal gas oil or fissile materials. The rest are simply way less efficient and way more costly.

      saying 'diversity' as a sort of green mantra doesn't make it a good idea.

      2 0
      1. Steve Knox
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: And?

        Why do we need several sources of energy?

        Because we're already using several sources?

        From your post:

        1. aircraft use an oil derivative;

        2. power stations use coal derivatives, nuclear reactions [and stored geothermal energy, kinetic energy from moving water, wind, incineration of garbage -- basically whatever's convenient for that particular location]

        Not from your post:

        3. automobiles use oil-derivatives, natural gas, and increasingly electricity generated from their own excess energy and or (2) above.

        4. Home heating systems use all of the above plus wood and whatever else generates heat.

        So petroleum-based products are already inadequate for our current energy needs, and it's already been shown that petroleum oil is a finite resource. Whether you believe that will be next year, or ten, or 100 years down the road, the fact is our society will need to a) develop new energy sources, b) move to rely on those sources some of us are currently decrying as "way less efficient and way more costly", c) develop some amazing improvements in efficiency, d) drastically alter our lifestyle, or (most likely) some combination of the above.

        Yes, just saying 'diversity' as a green mantra is not a good idea. But it's a worse idea to ignore the known limitations of our current energy sources. And saying "diversity" as a reasoned conclusion of a balanced social, economic, and ecologic analysis of our energy situation is a very good idea.

        2 0
  4. itzman
    Mushroom

    Peak wind is cl;oser than that.

    scientists ask the question 'is it possible?' They don't care about costs because they get grants.

    Engineers ask the question 'how can I build it, and what will it cost?'

    Here is one answer:

    http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

    In short if you take the rent seeking and hysteria out of energy, and go for best cost benefit, renewable energy has no significant part to play whatsoever at all. Simply because the alternatives are cheaper and better in every single way apart from political acceptability to a gullible public.

    This means thin the limit that Darwin will take over and demonstrate to gullible societies that they are about to die from sheer stupidity.

    And the likes of China and India who are not so constrained by lunacy, will in the end take them over. If there is anything worth taking over.

    1 0
  5. damo_al7
    Coat

    over two decades ago I attended a presentation at the Royal Institute, discussing the efficiency of wind turbines, where it was pointed out that for ultimate efficiency, the turbine would have to draw all kinetic energy from the wind, leaving it motionless at the trailing edge. Of course, if you do that, the incoming air mass can't go anywhere so stall the turbine. Therefore, some KE has got to be left to escape.

    Unfortunately, this trailing vortex/turbulent wind leaving the trailing edge and moving onto the next turbine makes the KE extracted even less efficient.

    So, if this discussion has only been going on for the last few years, and only become open knowledge now, what have those Harvard types being doing for the last decade? Pumping their trust fund students?

    0 0
  6. Mostor Astrakan

    As far as I can tell

    There's two problems with windmills:

    1) Not enough juice comes out

    2) They work when THEY want to, not when WE want to

    This doesn't necessarily mean they're completely useless, because we can use them to charge up the batteries of those electric cars we all know and... well know, but to supply the UK's ~50 GW demand of electricity you need something you can just turn on and use whether or not the wind is blowing.

    A nice and free book I found on teh Interwebs recently is "Sustainable energy without the hot air" by David MacKay. And everyone should have a look at gridwatch.templar.co.uk for a nice dose of perspective. Ecotricity tweeted happily about their new 66MW wind park (up to 66MW if we use the highest rated capacity turbines for the height restrictions, was how they put it to me). Which compares to 48690MW (according to GridWatch at the time of writing) as "not even a tenth of a percent". Still, kudos to them for using SI units rather than "Enough For $BIGNUM Homes". Those numbers always look impressive until you compare them to the 60 million people on the Island.

    2 0
  7. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    An element of truth...

    "...the amount of energy it would require if it were to build and maintain a colossal worldwide grid of enormous steel and carbon towers sunk into heavy concrete foundations along with the necessary associated world-spanning interconnectors, grid extensions, transport access into remote wilderness etc etc."

    The short and mid-term effects of Green power. I hope that some boffin somewhere has checked the sums and made sure that we don't kill ourselves in the mid-term before the long term benefits eventually kick in.

    Those windmill factories are *KILLING* the planet!

    0 0
  8. Identity
    Boffin

    Factors not considered

    I don't believe ANYONE has suggested that wind power can or should be the prime source of power. It must, of course, come in with other sources. Locally, it can be extremely useful. Recently, in New Mexico, the cost of wind powered electricity sank below that created with fossil fuels. Worldwide, we are approaching 1 TW output, with new generation rising (for the past few years, at least) at approximately 30%/yr.

    Personally, I favor distributed power generation. Not everyone is equal, but (for instance) were I to install solar panels on my roof (in New Hampshire!), I would generate more electricity than I use. Of course, it would (at current prices — though those are falling) take 17 years to pay back the installation. If prices come down, and traditional costs go up (and this goes for all alternatives) that shortens the payback period. Some will do better with solar, some with wind, some with geothermal, etc. New building standards can help, too...

    Around 1980 (!), Buckminster Fuller proposed linking the power grid globally, so that power generation on the night side could be used on the day side, with concomitant load balancing. Of course, that would require global cooperation. [stop laughing].

    Amory Lovins (of the Rocky Mountain Institute) has been saying for years that the cheapest power is the power we don't use, which he terms 'negabarrels.' It's simply reducing the need. After all, when the world ran on whale oil, you would have been considered a freaking fruitcake if you said we could power the world on fossil petroleum. Even then, the Dutch had harnessed wind...

    All in all, I suspect though cannot prove, that with adoption of these measures, we can created a sustainable energy environment, that meets our needs.

    0 1
  9. michaelgoggin

    Flawed study contradicted by real-world data and experts

    This study errs in its assessment of potential wind energy resources by ignoring real-world data and experience and instead relying on crude theoretical modeling techniques. In reality, wind project developers and investors work closely with atmospheric scientists and other experts to make sure that their projects will produce as much as expected, and real-world data from large-scale wind installations in the US and Europe confirms that they do. Regardless of who is correct, the inescapable fact is that America's developable wind energy resources are many times greater than our country's energy needs.

    For more, see:

    http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=21714

    Michael Goggin,

    American Wind Energy Association

    0 4
    1. Turtle
      Reply Icon

      American Wind Energy Association

      Oh, an industry lobby. That's exactly where I'll go to get objective information and opinions.

      0 1
    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      WARNING Lobbyist alert.

      Title says it all.

      0 0
  10. Hempy
    Happy

    Hemp

    All the more reason why Congress should get hemp out of the Controlled Substances Act. Hemp fuels can replace fossil fuels. Hemp is a renewable and sustainable resource. Hemp for fuels can be grown on about 6% of marginal land in the US. Hemp produces between 20% and 40% more oxygen while growing than carbon dioxide when burnt. Windmills don’t produce oxygen. Neither do nuclear power plants.

    Nor is hemp an unsightly eyesore that windmills are.

    3 0
    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Hemp

      "All the more reason why Congress should get hemp out of the Controlled Substances Act. Hemp fuels can replace fossil fuels."

      You forgot that hemp is the 2nd fastest growing family of plants in the world.

      1 0
    2. Charles 9
      Reply Icon

      Re: Hemp

      Maybe, but hemp only really grows well when the soil is itself pretty good (the results in less ideal soil aren't as productive). Furthermore, hemp oil is not as useful as other oil. For one thing, it can go rancid. For another, it lacks the energy density. Plus, hemp's use as a fabric or rope material is hampered by its hollow fibers (meaning they tend to wick unless you tarred them). That's why ships switched to non-wicking manila rope.

      0 0
  11. Dave 15

    surely

    One thing that amazes me is the current turbines being used. They are basically huge windmills. They are complex - need to face the wind,, they are difficult to make when they end of the blades is so far from the centre the speed they are doing is massive and thus the stresses are high. The size of the blades also means the windmills can't be placed close together.

    What is wrong with the vertical turbines - a bit like those signs outside the shops that rotate. I would think they are probably easier to construct as well if we were perfectly honest. Certainly they should allow more windmills per area and I suspect all jesting apart that they are efficient enough

    0 0
  12. heyneighbor

    get real.

    If you build a city it diverts wind.

    All this is blah blah blah like a bunch of hot air.

    Instead of this "proved the other wrong now I'm famous" b.s., what these brilliant minds need to get working on is how to store the energy wind and solar harvest, and get off 120v AC.

    All this power being stepped to 12vdc and under for all but a FEW appliances.

    No waste there, right?

    Here's how you solve the wind dilemma:

    Then one row of wind turbines, one row of solar, dump this into closed system electrolysis, store the hydrogen for later purpose, and agitate the high O2 water to reclaim atmospheric H.

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Does that guy work for BP?

    I'm not sure I trust a young scientist apparently missing teeth.

    0 2
    1. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Consider the following: P = I * I * R and P = I * V

      Power lost = Current * Current * Resistance

      Power supplied = Current * Voltage

      If you don't understand why these two equations mean higher voltages are needed, you won't understand why the rest of that post wouldn't work either.

      Go do some research - it's very interesting.

      However, if you don't want to learn any physics or engineering, don't proffer opinions on them because you'll just look foolish.

      0 0
  13. compdoc

    thats nice but..

    Arent we decades away from making any kind of impact on the wind? Its not like there's a windmill in every person's backyard.This conversation seems a bit premature. Please, build thousands more windmills and get back to me...

    0 0
    1. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: thats nice but..

      "Hey, let's spend billions buying underpants!"

      "Why? Will it help?"

      "Just buy billions of underpants and then get back to me."

      2 0
  14. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    **Estimates** of wind turbine generation?

    Why are people guessing when there are plenty of them around and all they need to do is see how much electricity they do generate.

    Studies show that research is useless when somebody knows the answer already!

    1 0
  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The answer is blowing in the wind

    What a load of bull. Peak wind power. So for the 125 billions trees that were chopped down, that took up critical wind resource, you think 4 million windmills take up more wind? One mountain on this planet could take up more wind than all of them put together.

    0 0
  16. colin the aardvark

    This article and the naysayers of wind power , including the deluded 'professors' referenced in this article who should know better (one does wonder who they are being sponsored by?) completely misses the point :

    1) Coal and oil WILL run out or become economically untenable within 50 years

    2) Wind cannot meet our energy needs on its own, this is stating the bleedin' obvious - doh

    3) Nuclear fission needs to be used in the short term - yes, stating the bleedin' obvious again

    But, and this is the point, at some point, *nuclear fusion* will go online. When this happens, and it will happen, it may take 40 years, it may take 60, it may take 100, mankind can simply pull down and recycle all those turbines that are so upsetting to you. The point of minimizing nuclear fission in the interim years (with a massive investment in renewables) is to minimize the huge amount of very dangerous waste that we will have to deal with, which

    a) can poison the environment for thousands of years

    b) doesn't seem to have any option on the table for safe storage

    c) represents a massive terrorism and proliferation threat

    d) is enormously expensive, the true costs not being factored into the price of electricity quoted for it - for example - how much per Kwh were the generators costing the Japanese public up to the point of the tsunami? And how much retrospectively did those Kwh's cost, once the tsunami costs to the state (paid for by taxes by the public) are taken into account? It will be astronomically higher than wind power. And in Britain, does the proportion of our taxes that go to the ongoing maintenance of Sellafield and other decomissioning projects, which we'll be paying for for 50 years, ever get added to the quoted cost of nuclear fission energy? I don't think so! When that is factored in, it becomes ridiculously expensive.

    However, nuclear fission in smaller doses (no pun intended) *is* needed for the next 50 years simply because the wind turbines and other renewables are not going to keep up with the planet's energy demands. But this is why - doh - we need to massively invest in renwables UP TO THE POINT where nuclear fusion comes online - the wind turbines will become obsolete at this point, but they will have done their job admirably which is to reduce massively the nuclear fission toxic waste legacy that future generations will have to deal with. And the nuclear fission plants will become obsolete at this point as well, so it's a win-win scenario.

    0 0
    1. MacroRodent
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Heavy but not large

      "The point of minimizing nuclear fission in the interim years [...] is to minimize the huge amount of very dangerous waste that we will have to deal with"

      Actually, it isn't so huge amount. The tonnage may be scary, but we are talking about very dense material. Digging just a handful of nuclear waste tunnels is all we need, not thousands, so finding optimally stable rock for them should be manageable.

      0 0
  17. David557

    Some people are generating their own green energy and even taking themselves off the grid. There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site www.diyenergyreview.com if you’re interested?

    0 0
  18. Ian Johnston Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    What publication is this?

    Normal the Register seems to have some technical nous, so why on anything to do with energy does it turn into the Daily Telegraph and start channelling the ravings of Delingpole and Monckton?

    0 0
  19. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    I live in a place where isn't much wind, but the sun shines...

    It shines for almost twelve hours a day, almost fifty weeks of the year. There is a shortage of electricity, with daily rationing cuts.

    Still solar power is uneconomical, and some recent government subsidy hasn't changed that. There is no provision to sell excess power back into the grid.

    0 0
  20. John Savard
    Joke

    Hurricanes

    If we build so many windmills that we run out of enough wind to drive them, that could have the side benefit of reducing the damage caused by tornadoes and hurricanes!

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.