Report: Global Wind Power Base Expected To Triple By 2015

Investing in the alternative energy market is a no-brainer.

:)

Or, a whole 0.6% of world demand.

By 2015.

Good thing we have centuries before global warming gets really bad, right? No need to rush these kind of things, right? Right? Anyone????

it's the 5th Law of Thermodynamics

not

:)

In the face of Peak Oil and global warming, all wind can provide is 0.6% of world energy demands? This is supposed to make a meaningful dent world CO2 emissions?

That's nothing to smile about, IMO. If anything, it's pretty fucking depressing, because it means millions are going to die.

Instead of waiting a few centuries for renewables to start making a difference, I agree with many other posters here that we should a) conserve like hell, and b) build more scalable energy-generating facilities (cough, nuclear, cough, cough).

But if you want to be all roses and sunshine about wind producing only 0.6% of world energy demand after 20 years of intense development, be my guest.

the U.S. would be uninhabitable for 200,000 years, not to mention the nuclear waste disposal problem.
Nuclear is too dangerous.

One 1.5 MW wind turbine in a good location will supply the energy needs for 300 homes. For those 300 families wind is a viable solution.

Geothermal, wave, tide, ocean current and solar combined will make a big dent in the demand for oil.
If , for example, the total renew-ables contributions were to equal 20% of the energy needs. That reduction in the demand for oil would cause a huge drop in oil prices.

The renew-ables don't have to carry all or even most of the load. They need to take to pressure off of the oil demand, to break the monopolistic stranglehold now controlled by big fossil fuel providers.

Note that I've said nothing about "roses and Sunshine", either literally or figuratively.

My agenda is to try to promote what seems best of the human race.

Oops ... :evilgrin:

Happy Thanksgiving! :hi:

Oh wait, the Ukraine is a thriving nation today? You must be joking!

be pointless for me to expand on my general statement about Chernobyl. However, I'll give it a shot.

I am aware that the Russians were able to prevent the total disaster by means of filling up the run-away reactor with concrete, a solution that will last less that 100 years. So, to be more precise, my previous statement should have been, "In the event of a Chernobyl size meltdown, that is not contained in the early stages, the East half of the U.S. would be uninhabitable of 200,000 years or more".

But, even as is the Chernobyl meltdown was catastrophic.
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=29455941&navID=191&lID=2&statementID=


And, aside from the meltdown potential itself, there is still no solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem. All anyone can say is, "that problem will have to be solved".

Finally, I think the nuclear route is too dangerous. If you don't, that's your opinion.

There are , in my opinion, better methods of obtaining electrical power. Their utilization won't be easy or quick. But, they might allow for the survival of healthy life on Earth. Further, alternate energy resources could break the monopolistic strangle hold now employed by the fossil and nuclear fuel combines.

And that's not counting the amount we will need to replace oil and gas depletion. Good luck to us all, we're going to need it.

I would assume that if one is loaded on Allen's Coffee Brandy, and hanging out at Mom's estate with 40 other brats, one would have less of a chance of learning the distinction between energy and power, or for that matter, how to multiply by three.

Of course, there has been NOT ONE anti-nuke who has EVER been able to distinguish magical peak power from energy, and there is NOT ONE who has EVER been able to count an exajoule.

In fact, the figures for the production of all the cute forms of so called renewable energy are given here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table11.xls

Now, if one could do multiplication, and there is no evidence that anti-nukes can do such a thing, one could see that in 2005, wind production in the United States produced slightly more than 0.064 exajoules of electricity in the United States. If one were to triple this figure, it would be 0.19 exajoules, not three exajoules.

The capacity utilization of wind plants seldom ever reaches 40%. In fact one can calculate, assuming one isn't slurring his words, the capacity utilization of wind plants in the US by using this data http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table12.xls with the data produced above in this post.

The average wind capcity utilization in 23.3% in the US.

If you can't do arithmetic, make stuff up.

Now, I am not presently drunk on Allen's Coffee Brandy with all of my yuppie friends from high school, some of whom by coincidence, happen to be named Brandy, but it is clear, maybe even to some people who are drunk, from these figures that even if wind power tripled - and how many years have we been hearing about tripling of wind power from our anti-nukes and their sockpuppets? - wind would still be a trivial form of energy that is of little or no use in fighting the dangerous fossil fuel waste crisis of climate change. In fact, the growth in wind power and the rest of the yuppie toys is not keeping pace with the growth in electrical consumption. Thus these yuppie toys cannot even keep up with the increase of dangerous fossil fuel wastage by yuppie brats.

Wind power has never, not once, not in all of the years and years and years and years and years of trust fund brat yuppie talk about it, produced a third of an exajoule.

In fact, the best wind plant sites have already been used, and the capacity utilization of the new plants is likely to more pathetic than the last 10 years of capacity utilization for wind.

the fallacies of other posters, it would be good if you would simply state your opinions about what should be done to meet the energy needs of the Planet.

Reading comprehension

*Global* wind power capacity is currently ~91 GW and will produce an ex-o-jewel of electricity this year.

290 GW of wind power capacity will produce 2.9 ex-o-jewels of electricity each year.

:bounce:

Sorry to bust your pathetic bubble...

not

Global energy demand is nearly 500 ex-o-jewels (and did I mention I feel like a freakin' retard even typing it in that way?), and using your most generous estimates we're going to be approaching three ex-o-jewels of power production from wind, globally.

This, despite the fact that the numbers compiled by the world's energy experts show otherwise. This, despite the fact that even in the windiest places you just don't get wind 24/7/365. This, despite the fact that China is over there building a new coal plant every time someone sneezes or drops dead from trying to breathe the noxious pea soup that passes for air over that whole region of the globe.

The only bubble bursting because of your post is the bile threatening to come up my throat and dissolve my esophagus. Maybe all I need is a 13-cent all-organic turkey sandwich to clear that problem right up. Does Subway have those? :eyes: