Slashdot Mirror


How Viable Is Large Scale Wind Energy?

New submitter notscientific writes "Renewable sources of energy are obviously a hit but they have as yet failed to live up to the hype. A new study in Nature Climate Change shows however that there is more than enough power to be harnessed from the wind to sustain Earth's entire population... x200! To generate energy from the wind, we may however need to set up wind farms at altitudes of 200-20,000 metres. To be fair, the study is purely theoretical and does not look at the feasibility of such potential wind farms. Regardless, the paper does provide a major boost to backers of wind-generated energy. Science has confirmed that the sky's the limit."

35 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yea, I'll wait for more wind farms to actually be build.

    I know folks that build those giant wind turbines. They think they build a good product (and they do), but not a single one thinks it'll be more than a supplemental. If for nothing else... Not In My Back Yard.

    1. Re:Hmm... by neyla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. But luckily we neither need, nor want, one single answer that solves everything. We're better off in a multitude of ways from havign a healthy mix of different energy-sources, rather than being subject to the whims of a single one.

      It's better to have some hydropower, some wind, some sun, some nuclear, some hydrocarbons, some tides, some biomass instead of putting all our eggs in one basket. As such, "can we cover our entire energy-needs *only* with wind?" is the wrong questions. The right question is if wind can be one part of the overall solution, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to that is "yes".

      As for NIMBY, there's solutions to that. Fewer people are bothered by wind-farms being installed a few miles offshore, such as those in the UK and Denmark currently, for example.

    2. Re:Hmm... by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know people who work with both the turbines and the energy grid.

      Wind power is ready for prime time. Gas is cheaper, but if you factor in a reasonable cost for it's carbon footprint Wind is right there.

      Storage, on the other hand, is not ready for prime time. Without storage it's going to be hard to break 20%. I understand that some parts of the country have maxed out how much wind they can have. They have to turn on / off the gas turbines to make up for sudden power surges / drops that it's not worth it anymore. There are a lot of interesting ideas but they have yet to prove themselves.

      Give it a few years and then we can see if wind can break the 20% mark.

    3. Re:Hmm... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Water heaters should not be running at all unless someone is taking a shower. It is called on demand hot water, tank style heaters need to go. Normally this is gas fueled, not electric.

    4. Re:Hmm... by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The big problem we have now is not energy production. It is energy storage. We need to shift energy consumption to when we have a surplus of production. If you can have your electric water heater (there are electric tank water heaters) only heat up at night when electricity is cheap, then you are shifting energy consumption and making the system more efficient. It would be worthwhile loss in efficiency (heat loss from the tank). On demand water heaters cannot shift energy consumption, so while they may be a little more energy efficient, they would be much less grid efficient.

      So, once the "smart grid" has been deployed, we might move AWAY from on demand water heaters and back to tanks.

    5. Re:Hmm... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A little more? We are talking about 25% more.

      You would have to boil the water at 2am and insulate the heck out of the tank if you wanted to have hot water at 10am
      .
      I would imagine more likely we will use a large thermos style bottle connected to an on demand system. At night it would fill the thermos and only then run again if needed.

      Old style thin tank heaters are going away.

    6. Re:Hmm... by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To avoid NIMBY, there are lots of turbines in NW Indiana-- out in the corn and soybean fields. At night, there is this weird horizon of blinking red aviation warning lights as the props turn from horizon to horizon in seeming unison. Better than the coal-fired plants with plumes you can see for a hundred miles.

      Multiple sources, as you cite, are a great idea.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re:Hmm... by ItalianScallion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Water heaters should not be running at all unless someone is taking a shower. It is called on demand hot water, tank style heaters need to go. Normally this is gas fueled, not electric.

      actually, on demand water is only slightly more efficient than a well insulated water tank heater, and i think the tradeoffs make it not worth the switch. effectively, the tank acts as an energy storage system, which means that you can use a much slower flow of energy over a longer time to heat the water.
      this instantaneous demand requirement means that the equipment is much more complicated and expensive to make, needs regular servicing, and has a shorter lifetime, meaning even more manufactured costs, not to mention reinstallation costs. also, since instantaneous heating demands are *much* higher than conventional heater requirements, often a new exhaust flue, and sometimes even a new incoming gas pipe of larger size must be run for the install.

      it is more important to make sure your existing heater and all your hot water pipes are very well insulated, and if you really want to spend money in pursuit of efficiency, get a solar water heating system if your climate and situation allow.

    8. Re:Hmm... by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Informative

      I checked my energy bill the other day and I was amazed by discovering that HALF of my electricity comes from wind turbines! And I live in the most populated area in my country, just a few Km from the capital, not in some little village in the mountains. If they're supplying me like this, they must be doing the same to millions of people. Count in hydro and only one quarter of my electricity is polluting. Also, we don't have coal or gas, but we have plenty of free wind and sun. Less imports, good for the economy.

      So, it's possible. What's the big deal?

      About the NIMBY argument in GP: We have a shitload of mountains and hills, It's not like the turbines must be installed on your roof! Or you prefer a coal plant in your backyard? Always the same old and tired arguments...

    9. Re:Hmm... by shugah · · Score: 3, Informative

      I recently spent a couple of months in Australia. In condo developments, it is pretty common to have your electric water heater connected to a special circuit that is on a timer so that the water heater is off during peak usage hours.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    10. Re:Hmm... by crazyjj · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems that the people running the infrastructure really believe in this wind energy.

      The big government grants they're getting to build said infrastructure probably contributes significantly to their enthusiasm.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    11. Re:Hmm... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Old style thin tank heaters are going away

      Not any time soon. Price out 'on demand' systems. Then look at the upkeep costs. They have quite a bit to go before they're ready for main street. They don't save all that much power when compared to a modern tanked system. They require large electric feeds.

      Now, solar hot water boosters might make inroads in parts of the US where it's appropriate (just like the rest of the world, sigh) but I don't see the tankless systems as really taking off.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Hmm... by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think CEOs (and their families) of companies should be required to live downwind/downstream from their plants. Would make them think twice about cost vs pollution issues.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Hmm... by Chas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, even offshore wind-farms can bother people. Because NIMBY just has no limits.

      The proper term is BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    14. Re:Hmm... by amorsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      By your definition all power generation can respond quickly to load changes. That removes all meaning from the phrase. Throwing away energy by venting the steam or turning the wings out of the wind or dumping the electricity in resistor arrays does NOT count, all technologies can do that.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  2. While it can be done... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ....No one has actually _built_ a wind power turbine setup that operates at well above the ground. I mean, consider the issues involved:

    1. How are we going to keep those turbines up at altitude?
    2. What are the costs of tethering these high-flying wind turbine installations?
    3. Will these installations become hazards to migratory birds flying at high altitude, let alone passing airplanes of all sizes?

    I'd rather build hundreds of nuclear reactors based on the safe liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) technology instead in the short to medium term, and in the longer term build space-based solar power arrays parked in geosynchronous or near-geosynchronous orvbit.

    1. Re:While it can be done... by stms · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ....No one has actually _built_ a wind power turbine setup that operates at well above the ground. I mean, consider the issues involved:

      1. How are we going to keep those turbines up at altitude?
      2. What are the costs of tethering these high-flying wind turbine installations?
      3. Will these installations become hazards to migratory birds flying at high altitude, let alone passing airplanes of all sizes?
      4. How much damage will these things do if they start shedding parts.

      I'd rather build hundreds of nuclear reactors based on the safe liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) technology instead in the short to medium term, and in the longer term build space-based solar power arrays parked in geosynchronous or near-geosynchronous orvbit.

    2. Re:While it can be done... by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's build turbine with solar cells on them, then we can exploit the solar wind...

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    3. Re:While it can be done... by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Funny

      1. How are we going to keep those turbines up at altitude?

      It's obvious. We need to get a bunch of cobblestone blocks and make a huge spire. Then we place the wind turbines at the top and build out. Once we are done, we pull out our diamond pickaxe and get rid of the cobblestone stairs up to the wind farm. Oh wait.... Too much Minecraft last night....

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    4. Re:While it can be done... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      space-based solar power arrays parked in geosynchronous or near-geosynchronous orvbit.

      Ah, I once thought as you do, but then a measure of common sense asserted itself. Consider the fact that the cost of getting to geosynchronous orbit is, per kilogram, larger than the energy output of a kilogram's worth of cells over a lifetime of "forever" (or damn near). Consider further that a gigawatt's worth of space array, beaming its energy back to the ground (at some cost in efficiency, transmission losses) is more or less a gigawatt-scale space weapon if it is aimed somewhere other than whatever patch of ground set aside as a receiver. What can go wrong? Consider that you can avoid this problem, sure, by using a very weak beam, but then you have to use a very large piece of ground as a receiver, one that increases in size with the geometry of latitude giving you a second trade-off between area of receiver and atmospheric loss at higher latitudes versus the difficulty of very long distance power transmission from the equator to the temperate zone. Consider that TOA insolation is only a factor of two or so larger than BOA insolation (so it's not like you get a lot more power by being out of the atmosphere) and land is cheap in the desert, and there is plenty of desert. Finally consider that land is REALLY cheap on your own rooftop, which very likely contains ALMOST enough area to completely supply your own house's energy needs and can "store" energy by simply dumping surplus back into the grid during the day at reverse cost to be drawn out again at night "for free", even without an ever-improving local storage option.

      Consider that the cost of actually putting 5 kW of solar cells on your roof NOW is more than break even on a 20 year amortization or less (in many parts of the country) with the amortization schedule dropping with the cost of solar cells and other improvements in the technology. The cost of solar cells per delivered watt has been dropping exponentially with a halving time of around a decade for the last three or four decades. It is currently between $1 and $2 per watt, plus installation and hardware costs. At $1/watt -- already available to large commercial buyers -- the amortization time for a 5 kW rooftop installation is order of a decade: it will generate order of $1000 worth of electricity per year, enough to pay off a $7000-8000 loan and even make a profit over that time. I've spent more than that on high efficiency furnace/AC for my house -- several times over, sadly -- with an even longer amortization. And, of course, anything that is "profitable" on the scale of individual rooftops is far MORE profitable on an industrial scale with industrial economies of scale. $1/watt retail is $0.50/watt wholesale in volume, and even allowing for installation and operation and maintenance costs, POWER COMPANIES will be GIVING you units to put on your roof -- as long as they can sell you slightly discounted power from those units. Or building large arrays themselves, but then they have the pesky problem of buying kilometer-square chunks of land here and there.

      So the real problem with putting solar cells in space is that if the price drops, as one can very reasonably expect, to under $1/watt full retail over the next decade, solar generation will proliferate like a weed all over the world not to save the whales or lower carbon footprint but because it is the cheapest or second cheapest way to make electricity. This will happen even if there ARE no breakthroughs in gigawatt-scale 24 hour plus storage, although I personally think that physicists and engineers will beat the storage problem too within the next decade -- the payoff for doing so is huge. Sure, we'll still need bridge power -- nuclear and probably coal or natural gas -- but the actual draw on those facilities will decrease to a fraction of what it is today. Whence, then, the incentive to put a massive Dr. Evil prequalified space maser up there at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars per watt, vulnerable

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  3. Consistent availability is the issue by thesandbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The overriding problem with wind power is that, for large parts of the world, it is not constant or predictable. So while your wind farm may meet your energy demands for one day, it might not the next... and there is no way to predict or plan for these boom/bust periods. The only way to address this is:
    1. Build backup power sources which can meet all your energy demands (for when there is no wind)
    2. Overbuild the wind farms and build massive battery backups to store and distribute excess power (expensive and still no reliable)
    3. Rebuild the electric distribution infrastructure to share power across much larger regions (to do effectively require tech we haven't perfected).
    No matter how you cut it, building an adequate wind power infrastructure is prohibitively expensive because you have to plan for periods of your total output being zero. No matter how much technology improves, this will always be the case (well, until we can control weather).

    1. Re:Consistent availability is the issue by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the real reason it's expensive is that the parts cost and take energy to make.

      now, something that might be feasible could be covering for example entire alps in small http://www.windside.com/ installations. if only for the reason that such installations don't depend on massive 50 meter blades.

      of course, nature freaks would freak from that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Consistent availability is the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look at your turbine, now look at me, look back at your turbine, your turbine is now a diamond!

    3. Re:Consistent availability is the issue by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      1. Build backup power sources which can meet all your energy demands (for when there is no wind)

      That's not hard to solve. That's why we have politicians.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Consistent availability is the issue by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's being done in the U.S. as well. Also known as pumped storage or pumped hydro.

  4. Theoretically, sure by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Theoretically there's plenty of wind power.
    Theoretically there's plenty of solar power.
    Theoretically there's plenty of geothermal power.
    Theoretically there's plenty of power in the vacuum of space.

    It's that niggling practicality of GETTING and USING that energy that confounds us.

    Arguably, I'd say the only one that's really proven itself over the long term is solar; as the Earth is essentially a closed system with only solar energy as an input, it's proven that there is amply "enough" input solar energy falling on half of the globe at any given time to drive that system.

    --
    -Styopa
  5. Bob Dylan was right ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Funny

    He knew that: ''The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind''

  6. as the doctor says... by spectrokid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just because oranges are healthy, you shouldn't have a diet based SOLELY on oranges. What you want is a good mix of different clean energy sources because:
    + they will compete and advance technologically
    + they won't all fail at once
    + they will all pollute in a different way, diluting the total footprint

    No energy form is safe, no energy form is (totally) clean.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  7. Ah yes, the anti-wind shills are here by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every time a discussion about wind power comes up, some troll (usually with a very high UID, sometimes with an account created solely for the purpose) asks how putting up windmills will affect weather.

    The answer should be fairly obvious. We have cut down a shitload of trees, which normally slow down wind. Putting up windmills? Slows down wind slightly, increases turbulence significantly, causing minimal localized temperature effects. Kind of like putting up trees. If there is any significant effect, it will be moderating, which is a good thing.

    In addition, wind turbines don't actually cause any heating worth mentioning, unless perhaps they catch on fire. This is covered in the linked article, which had the GP actually cared about this issue, they would have found with google and read already. They cause thermal mixing, which can raise temperatures at a specific point, but which don't raise temperatures in a region. It only results in higher measured temperatures in a relatively small area downwind. This is expected due to (fractionally) lower wind speeds and greater thermal mixing.

    In summary, anyone who expresses concerns about wind farms affecting weather is a shill, a troll, or an idiot, because these are not real concerns, and this is a well-known fact.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Ah yes, the anti-wind shills are here by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you're confident that will still be the case if enough wind farms were to be deployed at altitude to provide all the power we need?

      Effects of wind farm, known: mixes the air so that temperature readings just downwind are higher, then the air thermally stratifies and things are back to normal not far from there.

      Effects of multiple wind farms: since the net result of one is zero, the net result of many will be zero. However, putting up sufficient wind power means we can reduce the use of other kinds of power which actually do have a negative effect on climate (from our POV.)

      Zero times any number is zero. HTH!

      . I think your overreaction to a simple question paints you as a pro-wind power shill/troll.

      My posting history proves otherwise. You are welcome to peruse it.

      There is nothing about calling a troll a troll that results in it being an overreaction.

      At best the question was a stupid one that would have better been answered by asking google than asking slashdot. In the old days, I would have been moderated up for pointing that out. Unfortunately, whoever moderated that comment voted for stupidity. Luckily, some more discerning and/or intelligent people seem to have moderated my comment in between that one and this one. Unfortunately, you have also left a comment here. (Amusingly, there is an even lower-quality anonymous and cowardly comment next to yours.)

      Slashdotters, let's stand up for quality comments. If I say something stupid, I expect to be downmodded. Let's extend that courtesy to others as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Ah yes, the anti-wind shills are here by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happened with the tone in slashdot?

      People stopped givingup on chasing away stupid people, with the result that there are more stupid people.

      Can we share our clearly non-universal knowledge by answering questions politely instead of demeaning people for no apparent reason?

      The knowledge might as well be universal, because you can ask google (via keywords or plain English) what effect windmills have on weather, and it will tell you that the effect is negligible. This is actually easier and takes less time than posting a comment on slashdot, let alone waiting for the response. Therefore, it is either trolling (either for money or not) or a very stupid thing to do. I would call it incredibly stupid were it not for the ample evidence of how very credible it is, since many people seem to think it's a better idea to ask their trivial questions in a slashdot comment and attempt to get an answer via crowdsourcing than to ask a software agent designed specifically for the purpose and stocked with the bulk of human knowledge.

      I'm guessing most people here are adults, and an adult tone of conversation should be expected.

      Even if I couldn't tell from your UID that you haven't been here long, I would be able to tell from this sentence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:Climate Damage? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compare the amount of energy available to the amount we are using. Then reply to yourself telling the idiots that modded you up to stop doing that.

  9. Your choice by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can get nuclear powerplant, a solar array, a coal burner, a gas burner, a wind farm. But something is going to have to generate that electricity you keep on consuming.

    Make a choice. Oh wait, I forgot. Democracy, power without accountability. You can vote to have your cake and eat it to.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  10. On-demand DHW is not always the right answer. by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My basement is almost a museum of water heater technology - when we moved in, there was a huge multi-fuel (coal or oil) Victorian segmented iron boiler sitting right next to a 1970s style uninsulated storage water heater.

    I ripped out both (I broke a 1-ton come-along pulling the boiler up and out) and installed a state-of-the-art Aquastar on-demand gas water heater and lived with it for four years. Then I ripped that out and replaced it with a heavily insulated storage water heater.

    Want to guess which one was cheapest and most efficient in real world use? Hints: I have two teenagers in the house these days, and I have my own well.

    Don't make on-demand water heating a golden hammer.

  11. Re:Climate Damage? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have studied it, and nothing significant happens because you don't stop the wind, just slow it down very slightly like all the trees you chopped down and terrain you flattened used to.

    I really can't believe this got modded up even by one point. It is on about the same level as people who worry that Britain will be blown away by all the windmills, sailing off into the Atlantic.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC