Version: 2008
  • On TV.com: 10 More Most ANNOYING Characters On TV

Comments on: Nobel laureate: Wind is not the future

One of the world's leading physicists warns that wind energy is a waste of resources and that solar energy should be the focus.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (73 Comments)
by Goodbye Helicopter June 1, 2009 6:02 PM PDT
yep
Reply to this comment
by LindseyAngell34 June 3, 2009 12:41 PM PDT
WInd may not be the future but it's a FREE Source of power virtually untapped in most states i.e. Kansas
by americaspower June 8, 2009 12:58 PM PDT
Why not consider clean coal technology?

A lot of people don?t know exactly what clean coal technology is, so I?ll fill you in: it refers not to any one technology, but to an entire suite of advanced technologies.

During the America?s Power Factuality Tour, we?ve been traveling around the country talking to the people who are behind the production of cleaner electricity from coal ? including a stop at the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in Wisconsin. They?ve installed a retrofit system that has reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent and sulfur dioxide emissions by 95 percent.

In addition, through a pilot project in partnership with Alstom Power, they?re developing the latest in carbon capture technology. Check out http://sn.im/factuality5 to get the facts on clean coal technology once and for all.
by MyRightEye June 1, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
"The reason? Wind power still requires backup power when the wind isn't blowing, and that decreases its contribution to emissions reductions."

Exactly! And since the sun shines 24 hours a day, it doesn't suffer from this problem!!
Reply to this comment
by ckh1272 June 1, 2009 6:32 PM PDT
Solar power is stored for continued use. Try re-reading he article.
by myles taylor June 1, 2009 7:12 PM PDT
You can use the same technology to store energy using wind power. Also, diversify!
by SteveW928 June 1, 2009 10:27 PM PDT
@MyRightEye -

Did you read the article?
Utility scale solar concentrating plants can run 24x7... that is the beauty of them... and we already have all the technology. The big problem (also indicated in the article for Europe... but also a problem in the US) is the transmission grid to get the power out of the best places for the plants.

So why does Obama back wind?.... simple, politics. He just wants to be seen as green and doesn't want to leave the wind people out. I'm sure they tossed a few $ his way as well.

And myles taylor, no you can't use the same technology to store energy for wind power.. maybe some different technology... but it is much harder and most costly. This guy is right... Solar is clearly the way to go.
by Random_Walk June 2, 2009 11:40 AM PDT
"You can use the same technology to store energy using wind power"

Not quite. Solar concentrators convert sunlight into heat energy directly, but with wind turbines you have to have an intermediate step to make a conversion from moving air into heat (which in turn is quite inefficient).

Also, maintenance costs are a lot lower. 3 GW of solar farm takes less manpower to maintain than 3GW of wind turbines (all of the moving parts are centrally located and on the ground).
by LindseyAngell34 June 3, 2009 12:53 PM PDT
The sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and the wind doesn't blow 24 hours a day but the sources are free...How ignorant...Even if you live on the North pole the summer has a big advantage but the winter would leave you without any sun...there is almost always wind...Besides Batteries are required or very large capacitors etc for teh conversion back to AC power...I personally don't see much reason for AC power if Solar or even wind power is generating DC versus AC power...as most devices convert AC back to DC for usage anyway...even if they do use Step up or step down transformers, RLC circuits etc. Even our UPS Systems convert battery back to AC power. Coastal usage of tides, waves even current can be used for electrical power. Noticed the new flashlights in the pst couple years that you simply shake and they work for a while on the charge that you generated? The same technology has already been tested with bouys in the ocean. Tides are yet another source of untapped power source as they could very well generate large amounts of power. With the wind, solar, and water power we could burn a lot less coal that we are using for electrical energy. Then too, increasing the amount of insulation in vehicles and houses could save countless tons of coal a year. Changing over to LED's even over Flourscent lamps could save even more energy.
by gerrrg June 1, 2009 6:42 PM PDT
Deriving your power from outside your continent, no less from a region without political stability in just as short-sighted as is deriving your gas from Russia and oil from OPEC. Both are subject to monopolization, politics, terrorism and blatant extortion.
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk June 2, 2009 11:46 AM PDT
The Sahara is a lot bigger than just Libya and Egypt, y'know... Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia... these nations are a LOT closer to Europe, and are relatively stable governments/societies.
by ikramerica--2008 June 1, 2009 6:44 PM PDT
So, the EU ends it's partial reliance on foreign oil (they do produce quite a bit of oil and coal, and have lots of nuclear), so that they can be much more reliant on foreign solar? In a region even less stable than the current oil producing nations?

That makes sense.

Luckily for the USA, we have lots more sunlight than Europe throughout the year.
Reply to this comment
by EricJM001 June 1, 2009 7:09 PM PDT
Nobel Prize Winner huh? I guess they give that to just about anyone these days. Wind power *IS* solar energy. Without the sun heating this planet unevenly there would be no wind. And in northern latitudes it is far more reliable than the sun. Don't listen to retards like this, we need a total energy picture, that is the only way to make it work. It can be done!
Reply to this comment
by SteveW928 June 1, 2009 10:33 PM PDT
Heh... well they gave Al Gore one I guess... so you're probably right.
Sure, technically you are correct that the wind comes from solar... but I don't think most people think of the industries that way.... and I doubt this guy was unaware of solar causing wind either.
Your generalization about northern latitudes might hold true for Europe... but isn't so much a problem in the US (though the same problem exists for moving the power around). That said, this guy is right about solar being the key... I think wind can help, but has a lot more issues and not so much in return.
by ikramerica--2008 June 2, 2009 12:16 AM PDT
They don't give them to "just anybody" for the real sciences. The Peace Prize is a political sham. That's what Al Gore and the UN panel won. Nobody is quite sure how studying climate promotes peace, but, oh well.

And, I love how people so quickly revert to the "destroy the messenger" defense when they are confronted with an alternate view to their belief system. Calling this guy a "retard" is really a solid argument. You convinced me.
by Mystigo June 2, 2009 9:25 AM PDT
The vast majority of usable energy on earth is stellar in origin. Even fossil fuels would not be available if the sun had not provided the original energy stored in those. Solar power is simply the most direct tapping of the sun's energy available to us. It is highly predicable, increasingly inexpensive to harness, involves little or no moving parts, highly maintainable, and clearly one of the strongest contenders out there. Calling a nobel award winning scientist a retard, virtually makes you one.
by EricJM001 June 2, 2009 9:58 AM PDT
Solar energy output (photo-voltaic or thermal) is a function of surface area (2D). Wind energy output is a function of volume (3D), the air-mass of the planet. While we cannot use the total air-mass, the numbers are so much larger (by it's shear extra dimension) that it is more attractive to pursue than the flat 2D form of solar energy. Also, you must factor in the energy cost of making the solar cells to begin with, otherwise you will have an unsustainable energy industry.
by myles taylor June 1, 2009 7:09 PM PDT
For starters, we shouldn't pin our hopes on one source. Diversify! Make it harder for one thing (like an oil shortage now) to crash an entire economy. When one energy source is slowed for some reason, another fills the gap and life goes on.

Solar and wind both have bright futures. Maybe that makes sense for Europe, but in the US there are enough wind resources in North and South Dakota alone to supply the entire country's energy needs. It's the country with the most wind resources. Diversify and place solar power plants in the deserts of the southwest and place solar and wind in the best places around the country. Keep coal power plants as a backup. Supplement it with other green technologies.
Reply to this comment
by Geekoid June 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT
Diversify with location. Wind is inefficient for many reasons.
It is wasteful to store the energy. You can't Efficiently bottle wind, storing the electricity takes batteries, lot's of batteries, and converting it to heat to store and back again is very wasteful.

Wind as an all encompassing replacement cannot work.

Industrial solar thermal does allows you to store the super hot liquid though the night giving you base load* potential.
Sun is reliable
It can be used on cloudy days.
Cheaper to maintain then pretty much every other power generation, including wind.
Cheaper to build.
Easier to work with the windmills
Quite

This is the future.
It isn't about wind v Solar Ideology, this is about crunching the numbers. IN all ways IST works better for large scale implementations.

We should also be building IFRs. Good nuclear technology where the byproduct waste has a half life of 90's; which returns to background radiation levels in 200 years.








*If you don't know what base load is then you should be in this conversation.
by CommanderLogjam June 1, 2009 7:09 PM PDT
What ever happened to the promise of geothermal?

I saw an article a while back about a device called a Power Tube. It is a turbine run off of a closed loop freon system that is powered by the heat of the earth.
Reply to this comment
by TigaAyes June 1, 2009 8:25 PM PDT
There was a startup company working on this in Central Australia, where there's a lot of hot granite thanks to all the uranium in that region, but I don't know if its still happening.

Aussie governments prefer funding "clean coal" projects; Mitsui, Rio Tinto, Xtrata, Peabody, BHP Billiton etc tend to donate more to political parties than innovative startups. And as a major export commodity coal's a major source of taxes, which the politicians use to influence the way people vote.

Another idea was to build a chimneys (2-3 km high) with conical skirts (5-10km diameter) at the ground level in the desert - basically bloody great stovepipes with big tin sheds at the bottom.. The sun heats the air under the shed which will then rush up the chimney to drive turbines that turn the generators. Its a naively low tech, low pollution idea that just might work.
by Random_Walk June 2, 2009 11:49 AM PDT
"What ever happened to the promise of geothermal? "

There's enough geothermal energy in at least one spot of the Untied States to power a substantial portion of it continuously...

...problem is, that spot has a name: Yellowstone National Park.
by mjconver June 1, 2009 7:11 PM PDT
Though I am not an atmospheric physicist, I am a scientist, and Occam's razor tells us that his premise is quite sound. Wind is a derivative of sunlight, therefore there is inherent loss of efficiency.
Reply to this comment
by assman June 1, 2009 9:11 PM PDT
I completely agree.. that's basically what I wrote in my comment below before I saw yours.
by Seaspray0 June 2, 2009 7:11 AM PDT
Maybe so, but it's alot cheaper to harvest than solar.
by TigaAyes June 1, 2009 7:41 PM PDT
If France can generate more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear then the rest of Europe should do the same, the Nordic countries have realised this so they've reversed earlier decisions to phase out nuclear. But Germany seems to prefer buying Russian gas, and I suspect that's not only so that their former politicians can get plum jobs at Gazprom.

Whatever happens Europe will need to import its energy, so they can import yellow cake transported in regular ships from responsible countries such Canada & Australia, or they can import gas and solar power from inherently unstable regions via easily "sabotaged" long haul infrastructure.

Turning heat into power will usually mean steam turbines and for that you need water, a commodity that's not in great abundance in North Africa as I recall. Another problem with storing the energy as heat is that heat will dissipate over time and its hard to transport, so you can't wait too long before turning the heat into electricity.

Another way of storing solar energy is to compress air. Once compressed, air will stay in an appropriately engineered container practically forever. And it can be transported over pipelines which may not be as dangerous as methane (natural gas) pipelines.

You can combine the compressed air with bio-gas to drive gas turbine generators. For safety and environmental reasons you'd send the compressed air to the bio-gas. Because methane is a greenhouse gas its not something you want leaking into the atmosphere, whereas leaking air into the atmosphere is relatively benign.
Reply to this comment
by tornato June 2, 2009 6:59 PM PDT
Compressed air can also be used as a means to store wind energy without storage batteries and wind energy is a much better solution for northern climes in the US. There just isn't enough consistent solar energy available during winter months, but the wind is always blowing high atop mountainous regions.
by flathead50 June 1, 2009 7:42 PM PDT
Also, solar panels can be distributed on millions of roofs at the point of use, whereas wind power must be distributed by the big utilities and with the inherent loss of efficiency due to transmission losses. Sure the Dakotas have wind, but the transmission of the energy to where it is needed will be extremely expensive and fraught with environmental issues. Put solar on every building where the sun shines and deploy neighborhood fuel cells instead of big, centralized power grids.
Reply to this comment
by TigaAyes June 1, 2009 8:58 PM PDT
Rubbish, there are many people in rural areas who get their electricity from their privately own wind turbines, some of the same people also use photovoltaics and I know one who also uses a micro-hydro generator.

Putting solar on roofs in suburban areas is probably not worth doing unless the excess power can be stored or fed into the grid. Managing grids whose power is sourced from thousands of inherently unreliable sources is not as easy as you might think. And storing relatively small amounts excess electricity at the household level is also not easy or cost effective. The most effective manner of using PV is in large installations such as those in Spain, the US and Germany

Contrary to popular wisdom both Spain and Germany generate more power via PV than does the USA. Germany seems to have shown that PV can be made to work in countries that are not hot and sunny, not as well perhaps but maybe good enough.
by Zoobie June 3, 2009 8:38 AM PDT
Living in AZ, I've always wondered why the state doesn't do more to encourage solar roof-top panels and solar heaters for swimming pools. With the new solar technologies, they can now feed unused electricity from a roof-top panel back onto the electricity grid. I have heard we will be building a prototype solar farm in the near future.
by Veganjohn June 1, 2009 7:45 PM PDT
MyRightEye - the sun shines 24 hours a day? Not around here - depending on the time of year, we may have 9 to just over 15 hours under the sun - granted there is little to no cloud cover. What is with all you people, wanting to rip down wind as a power source? We will be using a number of technologies to generate electricity, from solar voltaic to solar thermal to wind to biomass to hydro power to many others I don't have time to mention. Working to put all your eggs, as it were, in 1 basket is a dumb way to approach any problem.

There are parts of the US that get near constant wind most times, and there are other parts that get many hours of sun a day, regardless of the season. What power technologies we create and install will have to do with where they are located.

As for this Steinberger character - seems he just wanted to get his name in the paper again. What he says makes little sense. I wonder who is financing his current research, no?
Reply to this comment
by Geekoid June 2, 2009 1:28 PM PDT
The article is about Industrial solar thermal.
Maybe you shoudl read up on it? You store superheated liquid and use that to create steam. That mean you can store the liguid wduring the night.
It also talks about locating the plants in other places and cabling the power to where it is needed.

This is a solution that can be done right now, and is far more effective then ANY other 'green' source. They should also be building IFRs
Voltaic is only good for small problems, biomass can not be used for large projects, hydro power is limiting, damaging, and expensive,wind is expensive, has a high maintenance cost, is load, and doesn't generate a whole lot of electricity.

To further abuse an already tortured analogy: Putting all you eggs in one basket is fine when all your other baskets are full of holes.
Diversify in location. Have you even looked into IST? at all? it makes a lot of sense and many states in the US are already moving this way. read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal
by pubmat June 1, 2009 7:59 PM PDT
Wind power is an inefficient waste of space, downright UGLY, noisy, and dangerous to our avian friends. Get off the wind bandwagon before its too late. The only wind thats worth harnessing is obama's big fat, pompous mouth.
Reply to this comment
by grossj144 June 1, 2009 8:23 PM PDT
Hmmm...maybe we could install wind turbines in areas near airports. That way, we can power the terminals and kill the birds that normally get sucked into the engines of aircraft. j/k.

Wind power needs to be just one of many types of renewable energy sources we use. I'm all for using our trash, nuclear power, solar, solar thermal, wind, etc. Whatever cuts our dependence on other countries and their agendas.
by bwrobertson2 June 1, 2009 9:25 PM PDT
Completely agree. Wind power isn't the answer to our energy needs. I'm from Iowa and am surrounded by several wind farms. On a nearby project by ClipperWind and Florida Power & Light the turbine blades have been disassembled and reassembled, disassembled again for repairs due to cracks in the material. This has been going on for 2 years. Also, when the wind is blowing at it's strongest, they don't turn on the wind turbines! They are not engineered to withstand 70mph gusts.

The idea of generating renewable energy from wind power sound like a wonderful solution to politicians, the media, and the public. The reality is that the Obama administration wants to power our society by spending three or four times more money to generate electricity using solar and wind power than it would cost to use coal or natural gas. The president says that this initiative will create "green jobs."
by KnowWay June 2, 2009 6:05 AM PDT
For every 30,000 birds killed by human activity, one is killed by a wind turbine. Vehicles, glass buildings picture windows, effluent from coal and oil power plants and house cats account for most of the rest of the deaths. Yes, there were some very poorly sited wind plants early on, and yes they have resulted in some bird deaths (probably less than those killed by Chernobyl). But every modern wind plant gets a thorough bird and bat analysis done along with studying all other environmental factors. The wind industry is subject to the same laws as everyone else.

However, wind is just one part of the diversified energy mix that this country needs. Explore everything, ignore nothing. And by all means CONSERVE electricity - this is the fastest, cheapest, cleanest way to energy independence.

Be glad we are free to have this debate. What a refreshing time to live - just having an energy policy (good or bad) is an improvement over the past.
by Seaspray0 June 2, 2009 7:19 AM PDT
@pubmat. Very few bird deaths are caused by wind turbans. I suggest you check the facts before posting garbage.
by assman June 1, 2009 9:09 PM PDT
It makes sense when you think about it.. wind is really just the result of the sun's energy causing imbalances in atmospheric density. Why not go directly to the source and just convert the sun's energy? Once efficiency is increased, it only makes sense to harness the sun's remarkable and reliable energy exportation.
Reply to this comment
by Seaspray0 June 2, 2009 7:35 AM PDT
That is the ultimate goal, but we don't know the technology to harvest solar power efficiently. We can harvest wind power for a much lower cost. Just as the railroads build steam engines before today's desiel electric, we need to use wind now as we figure out more effective ways to use solar in the future.
by sundance808 June 1, 2009 9:13 PM PDT
he has a point, the middle east can use their petro dollars to harness the wind and sun in that region and sell 'clean' power to the rest of the world. at least they can have practical use of the thousands of square miles of empty desert.
Reply to this comment
by Holly Klug June 1, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
In the US the plan is to compress air into empty natural gas fields. I think the author ignores the fact that if the utility grid is large and flexible enough, the combination of energy storage in places that are favorable, plus wind turbine locations throughout the US will guarantee a continuous supply of energy. The wind is always blowing somewhere. The eastern US is not favorable to solar, because large areas have frequent cloud cover.
Reply to this comment
by WaxAndWane June 1, 2009 10:14 PM PDT
A strong stance such as this is generally designed to solicit a reaction. Either Jack Steinberger is heavily invested in solar energy, or he is just jonesing for attention. There is clearly a place for both solar and wind as energy sources in this world. There are sunny areas. There are windy areas. Work with what you've got. And approach alternative energy with clear, grounded, rational thought.
Reply to this comment
by Seaspray0 June 2, 2009 7:36 AM PDT
Those who live off the grid will tell you that a combination of the two is the best for maintaining a more consistent flow of power.
by The_happy_switcher June 1, 2009 11:00 PM PDT
Old Chinese proverb: Big winds come from small caves.
Reply to this comment
by NGcomm June 1, 2009 11:23 PM PDT
As always - comments based on emotions instead of facts. Suggest you all have a read of the free document from http://www.uit.co.uk - "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" by David JC MacKay.

He notes that wind, even if you include the available space on land, shallow and deep water wind turbines, would produce only 40% of the power that photovoltaic could produce.

Check out the facts and leave the conspiracy theories and emotive adjectives aside.
Reply to this comment
by kgsbca June 2, 2009 12:17 AM PDT
Nobody is saying that wind power will make solar energy unnecessary, but it has its' role to play. In many places, wind power is already economically feasible, and it is those areas where it should be deployed. Solar thermal is not feasible everywhere, only in places with a lot of sunlight (like the desert), so outside of those areas, PV solar will need storage, just like wind, only more of it (because PV solar can only generate electricity for 8 hours or so per day, it will require a lot more storage than wind, which may not blow continuously, but in many areas will blow consistently throughout all 24 hours).

Until PV solar is more efficient and energy storage cheaper, no one energy technology will meet all of our needs. Until then, wind power can provide a lot of cheap energy with no fuel, emissions, or waste disposal problems, and can be deployed quicker than any other kind of utility scale energy.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 June 2, 2009 12:20 AM PDT
Mass harnessing of wind power would also be a blight on the landscape and would alter the weather patterns of the regions these wind farms are located.

In the name of decreasing air pollution and stopping "climate change" the solution has the potential to pollute the land with massive structures and create local climate change anyway.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 3 pages (73 Comments)
advertisement

Google's mobile hopes go beyond Nexus One

The world may have thrilled to the potential for a Google Phone, but what Google actually unveiled is its plan for a new smartphone world order.
• Photos: Unboxing Nexus One

Using your smartphone safely

faq Worms, Trojans, and SMS attacks are risks for mobile phones, but the biggest practical threat to users is losing the device.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement