Slashdot Mirror


Study Suggests Generating Capacity of Wind Farms At Large Scales Overestimated

First time accepted submitter AchilleTalon writes "Research by Harvard professor David Keith suggests that the global capacity for energy generation from wind power has been overestimated, and that geophysical / climate effects of turbines will reduce the benefits of large-scale power installations. 'People have often thought there's no upper bound for wind power—that it's one of the most scalable power sources," he says. After all, gusts and breezes don't seem likely to 'run out' on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research suggests that the generating capacity has been overestimated."

6 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cue the "Keith's owned by big oil!!" accusation by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Oh, you have to put words in other people's mouths and deride them as "naive hippies" before they can talk? I'm sure you win all your arguments.

    You should try reading the whole article next time. All the way down to the last sentence:

    "Wind power is in a middle ground," he says. "It is still one of the most scalable renewables, but our research suggests that we will need to pay attention to its limits and climatic impacts if we try to scale it beyond a few terawatts."

    Sounds like Keith is recommending we invest a few terawatts worth into wind and that it's still one of the best renewable options out there. But your knee jerk response didn't give you the time to read the article much less his actual research.

    Dare to stand up an any environmental impact meeting and point out that the physics of many of these technologies just aren't there and that you have to factor in manufacturing costs and impacts, and pretty soon you've got some trust-fund asshole in dreadlocks screaming that you must be a plant from Big Oil.

    [citation needed] Seriously, tell me where this happens. Your ad hominems and strawmen are really getting old around here, crazyjj.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Use Citations! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is an environmental impact of wind turbines.

    Of course, there is an environmental impact with anything you do. I'm sure there's an environmental impact from LENR in some form or fashion.

    First, they are ferocious bird-killers.

    "Ferocious"? Well, I can see this is going to be a rational quantitative discussion. They do surveys underneath windmills to try to estimate how many birds they kill. I hate to break it to you but the numbers are pretty darn small. Yes, it is a concern. No, it is not "ferocious."

    Second, they are noisy 24/7, so much that it has been to stress animals who can't get away from the noise.

    What? [citation needed] Modern windmills are not noisy and I've stood underneath the ones my dad erected and I couldn't hear a damn thing over the wind.

    Instead, how about some R&D on something which actually will be useful in densely populated areas? LENR fusion looks promising. If we get that going, especially with carbon atoms as fuel, that would be more important to the world's economy than the Industrial Revolution or the invention of electricity combined.

    Look, dude, I'm all for spreading our funding around. And I think we do. I'm really sad that ITER has had so many funding problems but the big difference between wind and LENR is that your if on LENR could turn up nothing. And then where did all your money go? At least wind has something returned as you scale. LENR is just a big output at the very end if it works. That's why their funding is always problematic. Nothing to show until the very end is a huge gamble.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:Cue the "Keith's owned by big oil!!" accusation by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the naive hippies and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by wind and solar alone

    What about the naive businessmen and their allies who will not brook even the mildest criticism of their unrealistic dreams of a world where everything is powered by fossil fuels forever?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Re:Cue the "Keith's owned by big oil!!" accusation by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

    large upfront costs ... takes 20 years ... half-way cancelled project

    Bullshit.

    That phenomena is unique to Western nations that indulge pressure groups and their abuse of the legal system, coupled with a leadership vacuum. China builds a reactor in under 24 months. The completed cost of an AP-1000 reactor in China is $2 billion as of 2009.

    other forms of energy such as solar will have since grown cheaper

    Even if that ancient promise were to one day come true it won't matter. Building will not be permitted. Period.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  5. Re:Ah, Let's Read the Whole Article, Shall We? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a nice little summary table towards the right here.

  6. Re:Cue the "Keith's owned by big oil!!" accusation by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not forever. Just through next quarter's results. Some fucking dweeb down in the R&D closet in the cellar will figure it out by then, no doubt.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...