Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Becomes Top Wind Producer; Solar Next

Posted by kdawson on from the beneath-our-wings dept.

SpuriousLogic sends along a SciAm piece that begins, "The United States overtook Germany as the biggest producer of wind power last year, new figures showed, and will likely take the lead in solar power this year, analysts said on Monday. Even before an expected 'Obama bounce' from a new President who has vowed to boost clean energy, US wind power capacity surged 50 percent last year to 25 gigwatts — enough to power more than five million homes."

12 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Makes you wonder by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kinda makes you wonder if government intervention is really necessary.

    1. Re:Makes you wonder by chalkyj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, pat your selves on the back. America (9,161,923 SQ KM) has over taken Germany (357,021 SQ KM). Good work.

    2. Re:Makes you wonder by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kinda makes you wonder if government intervention is really necessary.

      We have roughly 4x the population of germany, which means, per capita, we are far behind the rest of the industrialized world in development of renewable energy.

      If the disposition described in this article were applied to housing, it would be like declaring the wealth gap had closed because everyone who worked minimum wage pooled their resources and lived 4 families to a single family house.

      In other words: our renewable energy production is not up to pace with the rest of the world, which various international organizations say is STILL not enough.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, but the real shame is that Germany is actually no.1 in solar power and was no.1 in wind power (I say this as a German).
      Given the climate and the size of Germany, it's quite a joke.

    4. Re:Makes you wonder by qc_dk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The helix towers are also less efficient. And,
      the higher up you go the more wind there is.

      Finally, I like the standard windmills. I think they are a beautiful monument to human ingenuity.

    5. Re:Makes you wonder by cheetah_spottycat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It puts the achievement into the right perspective. Outperforming a country with less than 4% surface (and similarly smaller number of citizens) is not quite as relevant as the headline wants to pretend. Whats next? "Russia outperforms Principality of Monaco in natural gas production! Film at 11!"?

    6. Re:Makes you wonder by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. 99% of the time if I read a U.S. paper, I see how bad the U.S. is at everything. I see us slammed, mocked. I see how we rank behind every other country in just about everything. I am not sure where the "empty bravado" is coming from that offends you so much.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:Makes you wonder by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the "solar stuff" you see at the roof is not solar-power, it's "solar-thermie". To produce warm water while the sun is shining. cheers

      And your point is? It reduces requirements for traditional power generation just as much as it would if it were enough solar-electric to do the same job.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. Efficiency by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the US is infamous for using vast quantities of energy and using pretty inefficient devices (as a whole, not saying it applies to everyone). So some pretty serious energy efficiency measures are also called for.

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  3. What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your friend is an idiot. Do you really think people who have used windmills for hundred of years did so purely for the fun of it?

    "Lets spend months building a windmill", they thought, "to saw lumber or grind corn. Who cares if it costs more energy to build it then it ever delivers and we could easily saw all that wood ourselves with the same energy".

    Your friends argument is similar to those who claim we don't have global warming because it is freezing cold outside. It seems superficially true but comes from such a poor understanding of the issue you can't even begin to correct.

    However, presuming you ain't as big a moron as your friend, here is the reason this myth has come into being.

    It costs X amount of energy to build a generator. This is far higher then you probably think because if it uses for instance aluminum. Simply put, if all energy was equal, a generator that costs X energy from the grid to produce should pump X+ energy into the grid over its lifetime.

    Now comes the killer. What is its lifetime? Economic lifetime? Period it is written off in? Or shortened lifetime because it was demolished before it was obsolete/rundown?

    It is very easy to claim a generator should produce its energy in say 1 year claiming that is its lifespan for whatever reason. In that case, the cost of producing it must be recovered in a year. Thanks to the way goverments work there have been projects where windmills were put up and torn down in a matter of months. Of course these never recouped their energy. The headline went into the newspaper, idiots didn't read the full article and myth is born.

    This however also applies to nuclear reactors that are dismantled before they are ever brought online and countless other big projects.

    A normal windmill produces far more power over its operational life then it has cost to produce. If it didn't it wouldn't make economic sense and countless windmills have come up for no other reason than that the owner wants to make money from them.

    They have been doing this ever since the first windmill was invented hundreds of years ago.

  4. Re:Best discussions ever! by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well it's good to see your valuable, thought-provoking, high quality comment complaining about worthless comments enhancing the signal-to-noise-ratio...

    Clearly, Slashdot is a US-centric website where many articles and discussions are in the format of comparing the situation on a scientific or technological topic in the US versus the rest of the world. Nothing wrong with that, since there are many positive outcomes from that if one can raise oneself above petty nationalism.

    In this particular discussion it is valuable to compare the statistics which are a bit skewed by the vast differences in size, population and population density. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that being able to power 5 million US homes by wind power is an astonishing number in itself, and brings hope for a brighter future!

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
  5. Per use, not inhabitant by grimJester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd argue that wind power per inhabitant is also wrong, since it doesn't take into account that the average American uses 1,460W while the average German uses only 753W. As a fraction of consumption, Germany has about eight times more wind power. Link