Nobel Laureate: Wind is Not the Future

A remarkable article. Can you imagine if the Sahara suddenly became valuable land because of the year round sunlight? I would think that dust (maintenance) would be a bigger issue, but maybe not.

It may be "year round" but it isn't all day long whereas wind can be. Both have there limits and need storage and or back-up.

That's true, any power generation is going to need improved storage. Batteries R&D is probably a good industry to be in nowadays.

Speaking of electrical storage: Has anyone heard anymore about EESTOR? They have been making promises, promises for 2-3 years, but I have yet to see any tangible evidence.

The 24 hr supply of energy from the sun is through heat storage. It is stable and efficient. Wind is not.

I'm outta steam. Whew! So what's the consensus? Do we dump the wind and go for tidal power?

No,we use all the assets we have. Let all electrical generation systems feed the grid, and let the market even the price for all. The least efficient will fall by the wayside.

No,we use all the assets we have. Let all electrical generation systems feed the grid, and let the market even the price for all. The least efficient will fall by the wayside.

Sounds good, but the issue is far more complex than just efficiency. I guess it is the cost of electricity that will govern in the end, but even that is influenced heavily by CO2 levy that fossil power has to incur. Not all nations are yet committed to reducing the carbon from their power generation. Coal & Gas are here to stay for long, complimented by both wind and solar (and not forget Nuclear!) along the way to light the houses long after the wind stopped blowing and sun has set for the day.

Agreed. GA.

I agree, but I personally think we are missing a bet if we dont develop geothermal or the power from hydrothermal vents. As I see it, we are sitting on a nuclear furnace and should be using that power.

This is my first entry to this BRILLIANT site. I agree totally with TippyCanoe.. governments have been very very slow to look at tide and wave power... our own UK being by far the worst and yet having the largest coastline in Europe..? I am about to start building my own pilot wind turbine here in Scotland at 2.5 kW and if ok.. I shall invest in a total of 18 kW probably in three units. Our govt here has blown hot and cold with 'grants' for wind power to individuals. Alas, the funds er.. 'ran out' and it all went quiet. Engineers in the UK tend to be blokes with greasy overalls and a large spanner clutched in the hand, that is in the eyes of the govt.!!!!! (We know better!) Ask how many engineers we have in our parliament..? As Tippy rightly says, storage is the key to wind. I intend to try a big heat store of rocks etc. Easy I know for someone with 3 acres of nice land.. but for the cities surely some combination of rubbish dumps overlaying a huge heat store might work..?

The individual cannot really harness tides.. this is BIG engineering and should be the MOST important investment any country can make.

"Horae pereunt et vobis imputantur" (Cicero.., with a 'v' instead of an 'n')

Welcome to CR4 Limnerlad, happy to have you. I recommend the checking out the challenge question and assorted blogs which are pretty high quality.

Also be aware that we have a cat named Del here on CR4 who seems to prefer canned tuna....just in case you run into him.....

Actually, tidal and wave power can be done on a small scale, but the results are unlikely to attract investors- much like "mini-hydro"- who wants to invest $3000 for a 1 kW system?

Actually in west Europe there is a massive investment going on towards net coupled PV.

All these investors are small: typical 3 to 5 KW per installation.

Costs are approx €5000,- /KW

But the investor gets back his money through green energy certificates: for every amount of produced energy you get a bit of the CO2 certificate money that the big CO2 producers have to buy.

So it does exist: small investors willing to pay serious money for a little bit of energy. And they get nice money back in return.

The idea is to have approx 15 to 20% of installed power being PV. More would become dangerous for net stability. Net owners are now also investing serious money in adapting the network to be able to handle this unstable energy supply.

The idea that energy is cheap is really fading away here.

Poetin was very clear: cheap natural gas is history and from now on we will have to pay serious money for it. Europe is dependent of Russia for a serious part of its NG. Some countries even get 100% of their supply from Russia. And typically the Russians start to ask more money when we need it the most (december - january)

But what Poetin forgets is that Industry is very capable of adapting very quickly towards changing situations. so big chance that next time they close the valves that they don't have to open them again.

A part of the solution will be: forcing serious insulation and decent levels of efficiency.

To my opinion Mr Steinberger is getting old and doesn't see the complete picture anymore.

It is true that wind on it's own will not solve the problem.

Nor will PV or Solar thermal do.

Ocean current power generation is rather dangerous as the complete picture on how this ocean current is powered and kept flowing is not known. Will the force that drives this be able to overcome our energy drainage?

It is known that the North Atlantic current is very unstable and simple actions like adding to much fresh water can stop it for years. Guess what happens at the moment in the neighborhood of Greenland?

Tidal systems are known to be replenished over and over again. Simply putting turbines in the street of Gibraltar can supply energy to Spain, Maroc and Portugal. And if in excess the energy can be sold to the rest of Europe. (you don't have to go as far as the Sahara to find a nice source of "green" energy)

What the world needs is a hybrid system, with intelligent heat and electricity storage.

Let each house store the excess heat in the summer for winter use.

Distribute the solution not the result.

If we need to generate electricity form fuel, do it somewhere where the heat can be used. And use fuels which are unpractical for mobile use. (biogas, ...)

Global Regulation will be needed to overcome a complete collapse.

Things like: You live in this or that area and by 2015 you still don't have double glazing: you are not allowed to heat you're house anymore, might become reality quicker than you might even believe.

GA! Just what I was thinking. Disrupting the ocean currents could impact the globe more and faster than any other energy source.

I have been thinking for quite some time about how people talking about solar, wind, etc. energy plan to take energy out of our environment. Most of them do not take into account how this will change the very environment that they are trying to save in its present state. The Earth is a very complex environment and how it reacts to our "modifications" is often the opposite of what we predict!

Global regulation will be needed to overcome a complete collapse............you still don't have double glazing you are not allowed to heat your house anymore........

This is the kind of intellectual nonsense that gives me a major clog. You have the superiority to dictate the living conditions of the populace based on what authority? Don't come near my house and condemn me to freeze because you deem my weatherproofing inadequate.

yes

We accepted certification of electrical appliances.

Pressure systems gets regular checks.

Oil reservoirs do need regular inspections or they may never be refilled again.

Service stations need special flooring and even vapour return lines.

All this is to protect the environment and humans against the risks that come with the installations.

So why not forcing a minimal level of insulation: it protects you and your family against empty wallets and polluted environments.

I admit that it will be a difficult exercise for a lot of old houses, but one day it will have to be dealt with. Or do you accept that one lonely figure continues to pollute the complete neighborhood, just because no-one can force him to insulate.

In some cities here it is now reality: when you want to offer your apartment / house for the rental market it will have to have a minimal level of energy efficiency.

The same for selling you're house: you need an energy certificate and in some countries they now announced that the efficiency needs to fulfill a minimal level or the new owner may not be able to use it as it is.

Power transmission always seems to be the problem. I've read articles pointing in the direction of local power generation (whatever the source) as the future. And I makes sense.

If you live in an area with great wind then use wind. If you live on the coast use tides. If you live in the desert use sun. If you live in Greenland use geothermal.

A dynamic mixture of all green powers will eventually get us to where we need to be.

Now if we could just get rid of all of those AC adapters everyone plugs into their outlets.........

Very interesting article

The real solution to the energy probelm will not be options A, B, C, or D. It will be E, all of the the above if we are going to keep up with energy demands. Currently there is no single viable solution to replace liquid fuels but if we aren't going to go back to the dark ages a lot of different sources are going to be needed.

To clarify a few of the responses here. I agree that we must use as many effective and profitable sources of energy as are available. I for one think nuclear being the cheapest and most readily available power source needs to be put on line ASAP. (Lets not get into a food fight over the waste issue, been there, done that, finish reading.) I have worked in that industry and know it is safe.

Small scale river generators are being installed on a community basis, so not necessarily big business or government needs to develop massive plants.

The point about freshwater effects and global warming on ocean currents is noted, and may be a serious consequence, if we do not do something YESTERDAY. Procrastinators who want more study are why we are in this mess now.

There is no way in H we can build enough tidal plants to disrupt the ocean currents. You would have more luck containing a hydrogen bomb with a garbage can.

As each new 'Green' technology comes on line, including nuclear fusion, we are freed up to disassemble what is not profitable in monetary or environmental terms. Fossil fuels will still be needed for co-generation during slack periods or excess demand.

I have no clout beyond my immediate community. If you do, get on somebodys case and twist it.

Carl

If we only use tidal currents there will be no issue, but the idea is to use the ocean currents.

These ocean currents have nothing to see with the tidal effects and originate in differences in surface and deep water composition.

The same ocean currents have huge impact on our climate and disrupting it has been proved to be a mayor problem.

The Gulf Stream is 100 - 200 km wide, and the path varies 30-40 km seasonally. Disrupt that if you will, and show me where the proven mayor problem is please.

I agree with any port in a storm. The comment about not getting energy if you don't have double glazing MAY have been a little strong, but the difference between being regulated out of existence verses starving out of existence is probably not as important AS existence.

I agree with getting on with it, but don't forget conservation pays big also.

Conservation is extremely important. Although the most effective way to implement conservation is not thru govt actions. When regulations come out, people/companies just find ways to bend the rules, either by moving overseas, moving to a state with less strict regulations, lobbying (I really mean "bribing") to their politicians to make it so the rules don't apply to them. The best way is to not subsidize any industry at all and let the true cost come out.

If everyone has to stand on their own 2 feet you will find out who the tallest truly is.