[ExI] Efficiency of wind power.

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Fri Apr 8 09:54:23 UTC 2011


On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:30:18AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > Recent study says 65% of total electricity production in
> > Germany could be done with wind power -- in theory.
> 
> I don't believe that number, 

Take your beef to Fraunhofer (IWES):

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Studie-Onshore-Wind-kann-Kernenergie-ersetzen-1222015.html

> current wind farms produce less than 30% of the power they were supposed to and their output is very irregular. See: 

390 TWh/year contains the unit hours.

Again, the 65% of total is a theoretical value, assuming
100% utilization of existing *potential*. Trying to 
approach that would be a stupid idea, since PV will
eat wind's lunch long term.
 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/whoa-windfarms-in-uk-operate-well-below-advertised-efficiency/
> 
> And wind power is not inexhaustible, if wind farms become common that 30% figure will drop even more; and environmentalists will bitch about disrupting wind patterns killing birds looking ugly and making noise.  

You forgot the bats.
 
> As for solar cells, they use indium and tellurium and 

Plants don't use scarce elements. Even photovoltaics
has produced a wide range of semiconductor materials
in a short time.

FWIW, there are about 12 g/m^2 of CdTe in a thin-film
cell. CuInGaSe ditto.

> there is not enough in the earth's crust to make enough 
> cells to make a serious dent in the problem. 

I'd call 17 GW peak of 85 GW total peak demand a good start.

> Maybe substitutions will be found but they wouldn't 
> be a solution to global warming; solar cells are 

You're forgetting that the roofs are already there,
and they are black. The change in Earth's albedo will
be effectively zero.

If you care about global warming, look into reducing
greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane.

> black and only about 20% efficient, so 80% of the 
> light that would otherwise be reflected back into 

But it wouldn't be reflected back into space.

> space is converted directly into heat. And I just can't 
> see powering a steel making blast furnace with solar cells. 

Then you're uninformed. Power is fungible, most of local
steel is electrosteel, and hydrogen ore reduction is of
course possible.

> The only technology that is ready today to take over from fossil fuels is nuclear fission, moonbeams just aren't going to work.

You know, for a guy who likes numbers and actual
arguments instead of rhetorical assertions your
post was remarkably devoid of such.

You know what, let's postpone this and rehash the issue in 2021.
Let's see what the numbers for renewable and nuclear
will be in Germany ten years from now.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list