backtop


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 asking11220@asking11220.com on 9/11/2012 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
2012-09-11
1:59 PM

quote:
we could just build some nuclear plants and be done with it.


Nuclear Power Plants need plenty of fresh water. Fresh water that may get contaminated with radioactive material.

I read a web page report, "http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/vegetarian-205...", that "By the year 2050, you may be forced to become a vegetarian. That is,
if Sweden's water scientists are to be believed.
According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, 'There will not be
enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9
billion population in 2050'".

In my opinion I can be wrong, irresponsibly suggesting to build nuclear power plants can be dangerous because many persons may believe such a suggestion.

Nobody likes to drink radioactive water.


RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By Ringold on 9/11/2012 2:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Florida, the pools where nuclear plants dump their warm water is home to a number of endangered species and swamp life, all living very happy, monitored by state biologists and radiation-free, despite being there for many years.

Further, if the need was there, not sure why they couldn't be designed to use sea water, as corrosive as it is. Extra bonus: desalination plant!

Signed, Resident of Florida, Radiation free despite living in the shadow of a nuclear plant his entire life


RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By johnsmith9875 on 9/11/2012 5:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well hopefully with luck you won't ever get fukushima'ed


RE: Hydrogen is cheaper
By Ringold on 9/11/2012 11:21:36 PM , Rating: 1
Florida is basically a big lump of sand, the worst that happens here are hurricanes, which in the scheme of things isn't much at all. Fukushima put itself in an area prone to huge quakes and tsunami's, and then was caught unawares when one actually occurred. No such situation here.

Therefore, I say hopefully with luck you will not be struck by a meteorite, since the odds of that happening are probably in the same "too small to give a shit about" range as worrying about my local heavily-regulated nuclear plant. In fact, being in FL, I bet I'm statistically more likely to get killed my lightening... but too lazy to check that.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki