Print 63 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Sep 16 at 9:37 PM

Researchers estimate there's potential for 1,800 TW of wind power

Using advanced computer simulations, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Carnegie Mellon University studied how much power could be feasibly extracted from atmospheric wind and what the effects on climate would be.

Many think that high-altitude wind could offer dramatic cost savings over ground-based wind by tapping into powerful currents like the jet stream.  Indeed the team, led by LLNL researcher Professor Katherine Marvel, found that while surface winds could only theoretically yield 400 terawatts of annual power production, high-altitude winds could yield up to 1,800 terawatts.

That's 100-times the current global power consumption of approximately 18 terawatts.

High-altitude winds could be captured by using gas-filled inflatables (or kites) with turbines mounted on them.  One factor the team did not look at was price.  Price remains an issue for high-altitude wind harvest, as helium -- the most convenient gas for floaters -- is growing scarce.

The current research focused more on the environmental impact.  As wind turbines slow the air travelling over them, as they harvest its mechanical energy, they can have a climate impact.  But the team estimates that if they were well distributed, even at 1,800 terawatts, the impact would only be a 0.1 degree Celsius change in temperatures and a 1 percent change in precipitation.

Simulation climate
Researchers' models indicate that atmospheric wind harvesting may not have a serious adverse impact on the climate. [Image Source: Nature Climate Change]

This indicates that assuming costs can be worked out, high-altitude wind shouldn't have much of an adverse impact on the global climate.  Of course, such models are prone to error, so it's best to take the study with a grain of salt.

The work, funded by the Carnegie Institution of Science, is published [abstract] in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.  Ken Caldeira, CMU professor and the paper's senior author, comments [press release], "Looking at the big picture, it is more likely that economic, technological or political factors will determine the growth of wind power around the world, rather than geophysical limitations."

Sources: Nature Climate Change, Eurekalert

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By mi1400 on 9/11/2012 2:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Why dont they find corridors in high mountains and mount these windmills using suspension bridge etc. It wont be that high but might be even more powerful. afterall same geo-sensing hardwork is required to find water dam locations too.

RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By Natch on 9/11/2012 7:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just put these wind turbines right outside Washington DC? With the amount of hot air generated by Congress, it ought to be sufficient to power at least half the country!

Of course, we'll be screwed half the time, with them going on vacation, for weeks at a time!

RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By Mint on 9/11/2012 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't give wind farm builders much credit, do you.

Of course they choose the sites with the best wind first, but you have to look at total costs. It's not cheap to build stuff in the mountains. High altitude wind has potential not because it's X feet above sea level, but because it's X feet above the land below it. Bridges aren't nearly high enough to make a notable difference over a tower, and I don't see why they'd would be any cheaper either.

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki