1. Xi Lua, (a)
2. Michael B. McElroya, (b) and
3. Juha Kiviluomac (c)
a School of Engineering and Applied Science, Cruft Lab 211, and
b Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 100E Peirce Hall, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 0213
c VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P. O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT, Finland
Abstract
The potential of wind power as a global source of electricity is assessed by using winds derived through assimilation of data from a variety of meteorological sources. The analysis indicates that a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply >40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States. Estimates are given also for quantities of electricity that could be obtained by using a network of 3.6-MW turbines deployed in ocean waters with depths [less than] 200 m within 50 nautical miles (92.6 km) of closest coastlines.
Link at the top as always.
Is this related to what you were looking at, Noel?
Yup. But the paper itself is giving me a headache. The methodology is a little idiosyncratic. Are they really assuming that all flat rural lands in the United States be covered with wind farms?
ReplyDeleteI think they assumed that the maximum upperbounds is to cover all the flat farm land in wind mills. I've only read part of this.
ReplyDeleteThis paper is worse than useless.
ReplyDeleteThey leave a lot of details infuriatingly vague. No, not vague ... more like the paper is written so badly that you have to rummage around to pull out the data and assumptions you need.
I've found that lots of science papers (when they deal with financial or economic topics) are written in this annoying way.
Of course, I find it annoying because it makes me feel stupid. Carlos has the talent for reading stuff written in this format and pulling out the necessary information and assumptions. I don't.
Anyway, as best as I can figure, the paper is a useless thought exercise. Get rid of all farm land? Measure electricity production by MWh instead of peak load? Not gonna happen and a measurement you can't use.
A useful exercise would ask the following question:
Given (a) variability of output at any given location; (b) the corrolation of variability across locations; and (c) transmission losses, how much wind would the U.S. need to install to get 100% of its electricity from wind?
The number will almost certainly lead to an actual output (mostly unused) several times higher than consumption. Peaking peaking peaking.
damnit, Noel, don't tempt me into yet ANOTHER project!!!
ReplyDelete