> >> > >> I'm thinking I follow you here, but it might be best if you are > >> more > >> explicit and show the reasoning behind 15% becoming 6%. > > > > 15% of electricity usage translates to 6% of power usage because > > electricity > > represents 40% of power consumption (.15*.4=.06). > > Question: How is that usefull if we are strictly talking about > electrical usage?
Well, "An Inconvenient Truth" is about global warming. I was looking at all forms of fossil fuel usage. The impact of wind on CO2 will depend on how much is not burned as a result of wind power. > Question 2: What other forms of power are you including in that sum? Nuclear, hydro, coal, natural gas, oil....for use in heating, electricity generation, transportation, industrial production. I used the eia.doe site for numbers on this. > > OK, so that gives us optimistic numbers of 4.6%. > > > And up! > Remember this is currently a growth area so there is room for > percentile improvement before new growth becomes marginally profitable > or productive. But we were talking in the next 10 years, and these are optimistic numbers. The DOE is projecting, IIRC, about 2% of the total energy budget in 20 years. In 2004, the wind supplied 0.15% of the total energy budget. My projection of a couple percent translates (calling 2 a couple) into about a 1300% increase. That's quite an expansion. > It is an interesting subject. There is growth in usage and > improvements in technology. > More heads seem to be giving wind and other alt.en. modes > consideration due to high energy costs. Well, they are now about triple what they were a few years ago....and that's not counting the low dip in '99....oil is at about 7x that minimum. Coal is the remaining low price energy source....its price hasn't gone up much over the last 5 years. So, this is a good test for how feasible alternative energy is. A tripling of the competitive price is quite a change. > > Just another item to look up. I read it in the last few weeks, so I > should be able to find it again. > Then again I may be conflating the Iceland situation................ I think there is a good chance of that. From wikpedia, here's a listing of wind power generation capacity by country: Rank Country MW of Capacity 1 Germany 18,428 2 Spain 10,027 3 USA 9,149 4 India 4,430 5 Denmark 3,128 6 Italy 1,717 7 Ukraine 1,353 8 China 1,260 9 Netherlands 1,219 10 Japan 1,040 11 Portugal 1,022 12 Austria 819 13 France 757 14 Canada 683 15 Greece 573 16 Australia 572 17 Sweden 510 18 Ireland 496 19 Norway 270 20 NZ 168 21 Belgium 167 22 Egypt 145 23 S Korea 119 24 Taiwan 103 25 Finland 82 26 Poland 73 27 Ukraine 73 28 Costa Rica 70 29 Morocco 64 30 Luxembourg 35 31 Iran 32 32 Estonia 30 33 Philippines 29 34 Brazil 29 35 Czech 28 Denmark is a fairly small country, and ranks third on the list. It only gets about 3% of its energy from the wind. Doing the country sizes in my head, I don't see a candidate to beat it. > > Agreed....I'm just pointing out that it will have minimal impact on > > global > > warming. > > D'pends on how it gets used don't you think? > Suppose we (as I wrote below in my last post) are charging our cars at > night [substantially credited to wind power] and taking the edge off > the afternoon peak we will be doing something productive that will not > hurt (as in our pocketbooks) much at all. It might make other methods > that will be costly a bit more bearable. And if we are at the same > time expoting this tech to the third world and other trading > partners........ But, this tech is expensive...and the subsidies were profitable only after energy prices tripled. When they go down again, the rate of increase will go down. Plus, we are now cherry picking the ideal sites....later wind farms will have to be put in places that are not as productive. > Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these kinds of things work > synergistically. Most of the time, though, they work off breakthroughs that just happen. For example, semiconductors and solid state physics beget Moore's law (computers double the capacity/cost ratio every 18 months or so)....upon which hangs most of the technological developments in the last 30 years. Even developments that are not directly tied to Moore's law are usually indirectly tied to it. We have not seen this in alternative energy. Turbine improvements have been modest...although real. What we've seen is a jump in prices. If you recall, predictions for alternative energy that are very similar to the present predictions were made 25 years ago. Even with billions put into alternative energy by the US and Europe every year, the advancements over that time have been modest. In contrast, geosteering, which cut the price of oil field development considerably, was developed with a research budget of < 10 million. >The way energy storage technology is improving it may > be a whole new world in 20 years, but that is simply an unbridled > statement of optimism<G>. It is improving, and that is one important part of the puzzle. But, at the same time, it's not improving by a factor of 2 every 1.5-2 years....like computers have for the last 4 decades. We may hit a wall; we may accelerate improvement; we may trudge along. It depends on what's found in the engineering and research. > > Tangent: Hydrogen is fairly energy poor pound for pound. As much as I > like hydrogen it seems a waste of energy when you could just power > whatever directly with electricity. What's the energy density of batteries? From http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm and http://www.energyadvocate.com/batts.htm We see that the energy density per kg is much better for hydrogen than any battery. > Well to be honest I see nano-manufactured lithium-ion batteries and > ultra capacitors in cars coming too. I see a world where people for > the most part do not miss their ICE autos very much and homes are not > heated with incandescent light bulbs. I don't think we can count on stuff like that in the short to medium term. If we are to count on that type of technology, then our best bet is to spend money on mesoscopic physics now...and hope for a good outcome in 50 or so years. In the interim, nuclear energy is a clear alternative, that produces no greenhouse gasses. But, since it's not PC, I fear that environmentalists will prevent it from doing much, in the US at least, to minimize global warming. > I see more energy independence and people living off the grid because > they don't like the way the energy giants treat them. Off the grid will cost a lot of money for most folks. Windmills are an option on ranches...but not in the city. There will be news stories of course, but I do not see how it will be a cost effective option for the average guy or gal....for many decades. Now, it's always possible that a technological miracle will happen....and something will be found that will revolutionize the industry. But, those things don't tend to happen where and when we want....they just happen. > It will all take time and any time frame we set for the purpose of > discussion is arbitrary. But, I think we do need to think of time frames. Counting on technologies that won't be ready for 50 years to solve present problems is not very productive. I have no problem > I think it mostly depends on the progress of storage technology. When > you can generate power when you can and use it when you want, then > that becomes an impetus to gain sustainable energy. Well, in the sense that intermittent power generation no longer is problematic, yes. That is a plus. In a sense, solving this problem is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
