The first item on a Google search for "wind power limits 10% usa energy " deals with
carbon emission problems scaling wind power
Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100...
this study concludes that a more practical upper limit for wind penetration is 10%.....
sible wind energy industry in the U.S.”
report
Also of interest:
report
"Each wind turbine creates behind it a "wind shadow" in which the air has been slowed down
by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many
turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of
these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the
regional-scale wind patterns matter more.
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. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind,
had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.
In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought.
An internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith holds
appointments as Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of
Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as Professor of Public Policy at Harvard
Kennedy School. Coauthor Amanda S. Adams was formerly a postdoctoral fellow with Keith and
is now assistant professor of geography and Earth sciences at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte.
"One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is that as soon as you start to develop
wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to
assess what's really available," says Adams.
But having a truly accurate estimate matters, of course, in the pursuit of carbon-neutral
energy sources. Solar, wind, and hydro power, for example, could all play roles in
fulfilling energy needs that are currently met by coal or oil.
"If wind power's going to make a contribution to global energy requirements that's
serious, 10 or 20 percent or more, then it really has to contribute on the scale of
terawatts in the next half-century or less," says Keith.
If we were to cover the entire Earth with wind farms, he notes, "the system could
potentially generate enormous amounts of power, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at
that point my guess, based on our climate modeling, is that the effect of that on global
winds, and therefore on climate, would be severe -- perhaps bigger than the impact of
doubling CO2."
"The real punch line," he adds, "is that if you can't get much more than half a watt out,
and you accept that you can't put them everywhere, then you may start to reach a limit
that matters."
In order to stabilize Earth's climate, Keith estimates, the world will need to identify
sources for several tens of terawatts of carbon-free power within a human lifetime. In the
meantime, policymakers must also decide how to allocate resources to develop new
technologies to harness that energy.
In doing so, Keith says, "It's worth asking about the scalability of each potential energy
source -- whether it can supply, say, 3 terawatts, which would be 10 percent of our global
energy need, or whether it's more like 0.3 terawatts and 1 percent."
"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."
The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.
So a butterfly farting in Canada won't have any effect in the US? This isn't a butterfly effect scenario, though, this is simple thermodynamics. The energy you get bleeds from the current store. Change the flow enough in places, and other places will feel the effect.
When I worked for PG&E I saw the sulfur emission at the geothermal plant in Norcal. The entire plant, and road, and the field out to the main road was yellow. This is a problem.
We can only power about 10% of the US with wind before we are disrupting the jet stream. Small amount of wind power is good, sure. But it is fated to be a small portion.
I don't have a Tesla, but I thank you and everyone who helps move us to electric cars. I'd like to see Exxon stock holders taxed at a higher rate to support Tesla.
Airwaves are a public resource, and so privately owned issues pretty much end where they hit the antenna. I'd make the argument that it isn't in the public interest to promote crazyness. I support the public interest, but that doesn't mean every whack-o's mutterings are worthy of promotion.
We do research, but we don't build anything with the results of our research. Nuclear Reactors that can't meltdown are old hat at the US research level.
No. Your work was not stolen. No part of "take (the property of another or others) without permission" occurred. Your property was not taken. The software of which you speak isn't property in any real sense. However, you had an agreement, and for whatever reason, that agreement was violated. The reason the agreement was violated can't change the fact that it was a contract dispute, not theft. What you are trying to do is redefine "steal" and/or redefine "property" so that one can "steal" something without taking it, or depriving you of it. This is a point of view that lots of money and marketing is going into, but all the propaganda in the world won't change the fact that you are wrong. It isn't stealing. No physical property was taken from you without permission. You gave permission, under an agreement, to be paid and that pay was not forthcoming. You could say they stole your money. That would be theft.
Most want reform, not abolition. I think a two year copyright would be sufficient. The way it is now, the value to be added to society for pretending that it is property isn't worth it. Where are the increases in the public domain that are the reason that we are willing to pretend? If they aren't there (and they aren't) then why pretend?
Well if that happened, it would be a contract violation, not theft. At least where I've worked, I can't claim to own anything even I think it up on my "own time". You don't own the code you typed. It isn't stealing. If they don't pay you, that still doesn't make it possible to steal their own code from themselves. But if they don't pay you, that is a contract violation. Likewise, content providers who want to claim copying a DVD is the same as shoplifting are lying. They go after people in civil court, not criminal court. If you really can't see the difference take a few law classes, or read some books.
I would also suggest that if every movie went into the public domain two years later, fewer people would violate copyright. If they could buy a DVD for $1, more DVDs would be sold, and almost nobody would bother to pirate. It wouldn't be cost-effective to pirate. It is inevitable. Laws can be bought, but you can't legislate away the tide.
Disagree that the distinction made is splitting hairs. The fact is that labels make money, and artists get a pittance. The fact is that Disney makes money, and the artists get a pittance. You want to say it is Disney that creates it, and Disney that publishes. The point made was that there are makers and takers, and having the takers contract the makers, or bringing them inside, doesn't change the dynamic. Control of distribution is a choke point. If you construct a choke point on any major flow, you control it. Totally. What good is it to get a phone call if they take away your mouth?
Yes. But my point is that just email works just like that. Yahoo users can email Gmail users. However, you can't see google+ posts on facebook. That is where the analogy with phone companies breaks down. Email and phone calls are analogous. Social networks are not analogous to either email or phone calls.
Slashdot Mirror
The first item on a Google search for "wind power limits 10% usa energy " deals with carbon emission problems scaling wind power
...
this study concludes that a more practical upper limit for wind penetration is 10%. ....
sible wind energy industry in the U.S.”
Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100
report
Also of interest: report
"Each wind turbine creates behind it a "wind shadow" in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more.
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. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.
In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought.
An internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith holds appointments as Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Coauthor Amanda S. Adams was formerly a postdoctoral fellow with Keith and is now assistant professor of geography and Earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
"One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is that as soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what's really available," says Adams. But having a truly accurate estimate matters, of course, in the pursuit of carbon-neutral energy sources. Solar, wind, and hydro power, for example, could all play roles in fulfilling energy needs that are currently met by coal or oil. "If wind power's going to make a contribution to global energy requirements that's serious, 10 or 20 percent or more, then it really has to contribute on the scale of terawatts in the next half-century or less," says Keith. If we were to cover the entire Earth with wind farms, he notes, "the system could potentially generate enormous amounts of power, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at that point my guess, based on our climate modeling, is that the effect of that on global winds, and therefore on climate, would be severe -- perhaps bigger than the impact of doubling CO2."
"The real punch line," he adds, "is that if you can't get much more than half a watt out, and you accept that you can't put them everywhere, then you may start to reach a limit that matters." In order to stabilize Earth's climate, Keith estimates, the world will need to identify sources for several tens of terawatts of carbon-free power within a human lifetime. In the meantime, policymakers must also decide how to allocate resources to develop new technologies to harness that energy. In doing so, Keith says, "It's worth asking about the scalability of each potential energy source -- whether it can supply, say, 3 terawatts, which would be 10 percent of our global energy need, or whether it's more like 0.3 terawatts and 1 percent." "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." The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
So a butterfly farting in Canada won't have any effect in the US? This isn't a butterfly effect scenario, though, this is simple thermodynamics. The energy you get bleeds from the current store. Change the flow enough in places, and other places will feel the effect.
But the prez is not, and the GOP is. Strange that you would bring this up.
I agree. If the rule of law still applied, and there was Justice in this land, she would be in prison right now.
You don't need my Physics degree to understand that. Try opening your mind and learning a little physical science.
We disagree.
When I worked for PG&E I saw the sulfur emission at the geothermal plant in Norcal. The entire plant, and road, and the field out to the main road was yellow. This is a problem.
We can only power about 10% of the US with wind before we are disrupting the jet stream. Small amount of wind power is good, sure. But it is fated to be a small portion.
Actually Bill Clinton lead the largest peace time expansion of our economy.
I don't have a Tesla, but I thank you and everyone who helps move us to electric cars. I'd like to see Exxon stock holders taxed at a higher rate to support Tesla.
Electric cars won't use fossil fuel once we go nuclear.
Just don't fire someone for race, creed, or color, and you'll be OK.
So public protest is fine so long as it is neither public nor effective?
Freedom of speech does apply to governments, not business. However, public opinion applies to both.
Airwaves are a public resource, and so privately owned issues pretty much end where they hit the antenna. I'd make the argument that it isn't in the public interest to promote crazyness. I support the public interest, but that doesn't mean every whack-o's mutterings are worthy of promotion.
We do research, but we don't build anything with the results of our research. Nuclear Reactors that can't meltdown are old hat at the US research level.
No. Your work was not stolen. No part of "take (the property of another or others) without permission" occurred. Your property was not taken. The software of which you speak isn't property in any real sense. However, you had an agreement, and for whatever reason, that agreement was violated. The reason the agreement was violated can't change the fact that it was a contract dispute, not theft. What you are trying to do is redefine "steal" and/or redefine "property" so that one can "steal" something without taking it, or depriving you of it. This is a point of view that lots of money and marketing is going into, but all the propaganda in the world won't change the fact that you are wrong. It isn't stealing. No physical property was taken from you without permission. You gave permission, under an agreement, to be paid and that pay was not forthcoming. You could say they stole your money. That would be theft.
Most want reform, not abolition. I think a two year copyright would be sufficient. The way it is now, the value to be added to society for pretending that it is property isn't worth it. Where are the increases in the public domain that are the reason that we are willing to pretend? If they aren't there (and they aren't) then why pretend?
Well if that happened, it would be a contract violation, not theft. At least where I've worked, I can't claim to own anything even I think it up on my "own time". You don't own the code you typed. It isn't stealing. If they don't pay you, that still doesn't make it possible to steal their own code from themselves. But if they don't pay you, that is a contract violation. Likewise, content providers who want to claim copying a DVD is the same as shoplifting are lying. They go after people in civil court, not criminal court. If you really can't see the difference take a few law classes, or read some books.
I would also suggest that if every movie went into the public domain two years later, fewer people would violate copyright. If they could buy a DVD for $1, more DVDs would be sold, and almost nobody would bother to pirate. It wouldn't be cost-effective to pirate. It is inevitable. Laws can be bought, but you can't legislate away the tide.
How about 2 years? With a 3rd year renewal, but only 50% are renewable by lottery? No exceptions.
Disagree that the distinction made is splitting hairs. The fact is that labels make money, and artists get a pittance. The fact is that Disney makes money, and the artists get a pittance. You want to say it is Disney that creates it, and Disney that publishes. The point made was that there are makers and takers, and having the takers contract the makers, or bringing them inside, doesn't change the dynamic. Control of distribution is a choke point. If you construct a choke point on any major flow, you control it. Totally. What good is it to get a phone call if they take away your mouth?
There is a difference, though, between an artificial wall and a separation where form follows function.
Yes. But my point is that just email works just like that. Yahoo users can email Gmail users. However, you can't see google+ posts on facebook. That is where the analogy with phone companies breaks down. Email and phone calls are analogous. Social networks are not analogous to either email or phone calls.
Agreed. Many people follow news sites from facebook. Facebook has become their portal to the rest of the internet.