European Tribune

Display:
earleir this week, downloaded it, but have been travelling. Some very quick comments:

  • the 20% refers to capacity (ie MW), which is NOT ambitious at all. Europe's 2020 goal is 20% of net energy, ie in MWh;

  • the first 5MW turbines have been installed in 2004 (prototypes - onshore) and the first offshore commercial models will be running this year (financed by me)

I need to add the links to earleir wind diaries, but will do that tomorrow.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
How do you know that it is only capacity. From "Approximately 100,000 turbines will be required to produce 20% of the nation's electricity in 2030." in one of the blue boxes I would guess it is 'energy'.

And if it is only capacity, how would that likely relate to 'energy'

Lich King/Caribou Barbie 08
Pain brings Katharsis

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you're right. It also speaks to ramping up to five times the current rate which would be about 30GW per year. One percent is about 15GW of nameplate capacity I believe.
by MarekNYC on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 06:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words I think that Jerome is correct.  These are capacity ratings under 'standard conditions'.  It is not uncommon to assume that the rating means power-delivered.  Any estimate of power supplied makes a huge assumption about everything from wind conditions to - as the author points out - manufacturing capacity.

Great (USian) diary, NBBooks.  May I repost on another blog?

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, please do spread it around. The more the merrier.

I have already posted it on DailyKos and on epluribusmedia.org.

by NBBooks on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The diary was getting rather long, so I left out a great many issues and details. Yes, 20% refers only to capacity. The 20% figure is a riff off of the speeches Bush gave - and Bush probably pulled 20% out of his butt hole, so I agree that 20% is a very weak goal. If I were leader of the free world, I would set a goal of 100%. At 100% of capacity right this minute, wind would provide about a third of electricity consumed - if there's no wind, or too much wind, you can't get electricity out of 'em. One of the speakers at the AWEA workshop mentioned that we can expect to get up to the mid-40s, with a theoretical upper limit of the high-40s or low-50s. The people in the wind industry are very forthright that wind is not an answer all by itself; there must be a portfolio of energy sources of which wind is only one.
by NBBooks on Wed May 14th, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd like to see a combination of wind energy and encouragement for solar, especially for home use. Despite all the roadblocks in its way, the technology for that has continued to become more efficient, and there are now flat roof panels much less obtrusive than the old, sticking-up-in-air ones.

Given even a smidgen of the subsidies available to dirty technologies, solar could go a long way toward lighting a good portion of the U.S. And building all the components would, as with wind, help revitalize industries that have been sacked in recent years.

by Mnemosyne on Thu May 15th, 2008 at 12:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
24 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
84 comments

The Purpose of Education
by rdf - Nov 20
1 comment

Help oppose Sarko's three strike nonsense
by nicta - Nov 20
6 comments

LQD: The real orgasmic Puritans
by Ted Welch - Nov 20
6 comments

So I met Bill McKibben
by SacredCowTipper - Nov 20
3 comments

LQD: Geoengineering Ranked
by nanne - Nov 21
20 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
4 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series