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.

[Bytrat]

Don't put all of your eggs into one basket. If the Sun isn't shinning, the wind is blowing. Using a combination of multiple sources will supply most of the power needs of our society today. Relying on just one technology will be our downfall and will result in increased costs when that single technology is unavailable. Using a combination of several systems will keep the energy grid stable and reliable. Everybody keeps dumping on a single technology whether it is solar electrical, thermal, wind, hydro or what have you, the best thing to remember is that all will supply our energy needs together. The most important thing to remember is to conserve energy so that it doesn't have to be created in the first place. To minimize energy losses, it must be created realativly close to where it is to be utilized. Having powerlines travel hundreds of miles just creates a major energy loss - you have to create more than what is used just to get the energy to it's destination (lineloss). How many homes could be powered just from the electricity lost to wire resistances? LOTS!

[luke_marsh]

Wrong answer.
Why not model a Wind and solar power generator on small trees. So like people would have high solar energy focalizing and the ability to make the most of windy moments in one very efficient package (An artificial set of small trees).
Then you could if you were clever enough have microsized Legal open use band transceivers making use of the tree too for super mesh networks and also for high end reception of content.

Yep a lowly simple tree for you peps. Yes I know I know it's A revolutionary thought. Well actually ask the tree it's evolutionary and practical actually, now that's revolutionary thinking.

[luke_marsh]

If you want something really useful for proven high energy making try working into types of C02 fuel cell set ups. C02 is always there unlike the sun or the wind, you could have a little chimney C02 sucker and use C02 to power your house, Better yet you could have a car that collects C02 from everyone else's exhaust for you to power your car with(owe I like that thought). Yep the tree could even help for building initial charge.
But you don't wanna do that when you can run on fossil fuels and dream of a day such sellers of fossil fuel will never let come with out their full ownership having first cornered you into a bleak outlook as to what's possible and a distorted view of what's most applicable.
That would be like thinking your average Jo in the USA is going to be watching Ultra high definition TV over a 50Mb connection in full high dynamic colour next year(It ain't gonna happen just yep more carrots dangled at you by good minds held back by Luddites). P'S year but I might (the 50Mb connection is available, The Dirac codec could manage it well and UHD screens are comming down in price so i'm not kidding I might and I'll bet mr Murdok wouldent be behind such content i'd receive either you know because our streaming protocol is run by a top advertising industry, the makers of Utorrent, BT, Virgin, ITV and the BBC ect none of which are ACTUALLY onwed by Rupet murdock.
Is that a personal attack on the man who owns the DOW, Fox ect ect.
Or is It just simply a fact that If i do manage to get that Dirac coded service over a 50Mb/s (year) connection it probably won't be mr murdock in the fast lane to my content needs(yes but I'm I being honest and then how is honesty a personal attack ummmmmmmmm).
More like a ha ha National attack on that US dude sitting there at home wondering why his 2.3Mb connection won't go green which is the topic here you know tree designs for energy producers, C02 fuels cells, Water possibly, Magno charging off the earth fields and Ionic's for extra umpth to power that 2.3MB/s NTSCy capable device definitely(de trolled my words there see), Oh or yes Algae fuel, Nano orbital crystal charge and earth deployment systems, Not rocket Ground, Autonomous unit and orbital array power Charged nano particle micro craft launches to otter space such that later a man could fit in it, Sorry going off course again what other things are you denied. Transputers for saving energy. exokernels, Multi microkernel environments, Nano crystal Nuclear fusion, An OS that has more than one crampt code running space to work in, true efficient Turing computing, Efficient mini flyers for delivery of personal goods, Basically all of the good stuff is impossible and if you think other wise your stupid and yes back to the article your never get anywhere really with it accept to where it's practical as a little support for crapodom.

Prove me wrong please.

[aaroberts]

It's amazing that a Nobel laureate can be such an idiot. Anyone that proposes a single solution is either an idiot or has vested interests (alright he has vested interests as described in the article above). We have a single solution now (fossil fuels) and look where it's gotten us. Of course one could make the argument that wind power is just another form of solar power. The bottom line is we need a variety of complimentary solutions. We need to grab the lowest hanging and cleanest fruit first and move on from there.

[tsport100]

Nothing like making a speach to push the case for funding of your own project..... Although $10 Billion per Gigawatt sounds astronomical..

[Harlan879]

Wind may not solve the problem, but it has three big advantages. First, it's available *now*, and it's easy to ramp up production and installation as needed. Second, it's currently cheaper than solar, although that may change. Third, and most importantly, it's a stepping-stone to future technologies, in that it forces us to consider more distributed and more varied sources of power, and to upgrade the grid accordingly. It's no good to wait 15 years for solar-thermal to get the kinks ironed out before you start upgrading the grid.

[ledhead1962]

For someone who is supposed to be an important intellectual he sure is short sighted. Firstly, any energy source that is outside the jurisdiction of the country using it is subject to extraneous political and social issues and is therefore no better then getting your oil from Russia or the Middle East. Lastly, any country that would put all it's eggs in one basket in the energy revolution would risk a new technology failing and leaving themselves, again, at the mercy of outside forces (solar thermal uses molten salt to store heat and a malfunction could cause said salt to cool, solidify and render the system one huge seized piece of very expensive junk. Unless there is new tech I am unaware of). Far better, I believe, to exploit all possibilities at such an early juncture in new technology, but then I am no nobel laureate.

[Voice_Of_Logic]

If you want solar energy then go to SolarOndemand.com. That is where you can get all of the kits and information on building custom solar solutions.

[olsonde]

Wind Power is a direct result of Solar Power. Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the air in the atmosphere by the sun. But I must agree with Steinberger on his general statement. Even though Wind Power is the child of Solar Power, it is not as efficient as gathering the energy straight from the original (Solar) source. If we could create efficient (and inexpensive) solar energy converters (i.e. solar cells or Thermal Towers) and methods for storing the resulting energy (hydrogen batteries), we could do without all other sources of energy.

[fokkwp]

This is why they don't hire physicists to solve real-world problems. We would be better off if famous experts in one field were humble enough to know the limits of their knowledge instead of spouting off about subjects they understand no better than does a college sophomore.

It takes teams of really co-operating specialists to design a power system, including wind as a major and now extremely important component of the existing power distribution system.

I'm just guessing that this genius has property - or friends with property - that is "threatened" by the possible imposition of wind generators in its viewscape. Such people have shut down important wind generation projects in England and other places.

[ArtInvent]

It's completely true that we should try and tap solar power a whole lot more, and yes, probably the solar thermal storage approach is the smartest.

But wind is a free resource and there are enormous areas, like offshore away from people, where virtually no one would even notice thousands of huge generators, and where putting any kind of solar installation would be pointless.

Wind power can be stored as well: the wind is used to pump air into deep underground wells. The air pressure then can be used at any time to run generators. Small wind generators are not that efficient on a cost basis, but the really big ones are pretty compelling. The designs get better and more reliable over time. As far as environmental impact, hey, I drive past a huge field of ugly oil pumps near Bakersfield CA all the time. The wind farms in the nearby Tehachapi pass are a whole lot more benign and attractive. The solar plants sprouting up in the Mojave Desert are also fairly benign. Just a bunch of mirrors or panels sitting there. You got any idea how empty and vast much of the SW USA is? We could fill the SW with solar farms enough to provide all the US energy needs and it would still be 99% empty and vast. I'm an environmentalist, but if you want energy, you need to see the big picture.

[ScooterCommuter]

Re: "Wind is not the future."

You would expect a Nobel laureate to know better than to presume that there is but one answer to a problem as complex as generating energy for human society on Earth. "The" future consists of a diverse set of power sources, as does the present. The mix will change. Wind will be a larger portion of future than it is today. It's growing at a fast pace. Will it ever become the only source of energy? No. Neither will solar energy, or any other.

[Roman1024A]

Quote from the article: "Steinberger now wants funding for a big pilot project. "

That puts Steinberger's opinion about wind energy in doubt right there. Regardless whether he is right or wrong - he is clearly biased because right now he is in bussiness of getting funding for his big project. So he is going to say nice things about his project and not so nice things about competing projects.

I personally like solar too, but as far I remember the cost of wind energy last year per watt were below solar energy costs.

[grey_eminence]

I believe a new patent pending "Microwave Power Transmission Satellite" with >>>110%

efficiency at a cost of $ 300k satellite launched into LEO at 200 miles ($500k to $ 1M) will give 24 x 7 of

>>>>Gigawatts of a network of sat. space based energy around the world will be the winner.

Solar panels are <20% efficient and Solar panel steam is <20% plus takes alot of water, infrastructure, land, and when the Sun goes down you had better have a 100,000 acre power storage facility.

Wind is okay as supplement to the waher and dryer.

[theBike1945]

Wind power is getting slammed by just about everyone, especially in those countries that were early adopters, like Denmark and Germany. In both countries wind has led to zero reduction in carbon levels, despite the enormous number of wind mills errected in both. Everyone knows thta wiond no tonly sucks but requires far more maintenece than originally thought and produces far less than originally estimated - England reported just 27% load capacity, despite having many offshore machines, where the wind is typically twice a plentiful. It's true that solar thermal energy can be stored for use during the more critical peak demand periods. that requires that some solar energy WAS COLLECTED that day.
Even in the Mojave desert where Brightsource is siting their first plants, clouds prevent energy collection for many days per year. In places like "the sunshine satte: of Florida, solar energy is much less plentiful ad cost far more to produce. Brightsource claimed $3 billion for about a gigawatt of capacity. Now a gigawatt of nuclear capacity means a gigawatt of prodcution, and cost around $5 billion (which brainless media outlets like the NY Times have called "exorbitant") . But that nuclear plant lasts 60 years, the solar plant 20, and the gigawatt solar plant will have a tough time producing
one quarter that (the sun really doesn't shine all that much in 24 hours, and only is strong during the midday hours) or 250 megawatts., making a solar plant 's build costs on an equivalent basis over $30 billion to produce a gigawatt for the next 60 years. There are also side effect costs for solar that aren't present for nuclear - back up power plant requirements and the burning of excessive fossil fuels to track solar generated inputs to the grid, all factors that the solar power cheerleaders conveniently ignore. And don't presume that nuclear fuel costs or waste storage costs or decomissioning costs
will amount to much - they all together are less than 7/10th of a penny per kilowatthoue. Solar thermal power from BrightSource probably costs on the order of 20 plus cents per kilowatthour, while nuclear would cost around 5 to 6 cents.

[martin_c_e]

So we should just ignore wind power according to a Nobel Peace Prize winner? With all due respect, we need to diversify. Solar is inefficient at this time. PV panels will need batteries just as wind does. The power companies are building a new grid that will have batteries, lots of batteries. The man may be proved correct ultimately; but for now, we need to explore all options.

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

All the arguments. Winning a Nobel in any of the hard sciences is hard. After all, Einstein received his for his work on light, not E=MCsquared. Of course, the Nobel in any of thecategories is subjective, not objetive.

That said, there has to be a mix of power sources. Nuclear, Wind, Solar, power by harnesing ocean tidess: all have their place.

For those of you who don't understand ocean power, it really is quite simple, although a tad pricey, but then the others are also. The idea is to place undersea generators, run by the power of tides be they in or out, and run cable to the power grid. Those generators only need to be 2,500 feet offshore, making the power cables reasonably short, electricity grid-wise. And ladies and gents, tide, or wave if you prefer, does work. Maybe not in Kansas, but then there is plenty of wind there, along with a fair amount of sunshine most of the year. Nuclear power thrown into the mix and we have a very good amount of power available.

The biggest problem is the grid. Anyone who remembers the blackouts in the Northeast know that it takes only one blown switch or power surge to cause massive blackouts. Tracking the problem down is a problem in and of itself, since each point of the grid has to be checked.

However, throw backup power sources (batteries, Lithium Ion or something yet to be invented and will probably be) in the mixx and a blackout may last only long enough to screw up some personal computer components. Commercial computers nearly all have backup power, battery at first and then an emergency generator kicking in, hopefully powered by diesel.

If a person has a problem with using diesel, it's dirty sure, but doesn't have the trash problems that gasoline does and doesn't require as many parts for the engine. There also can be underground storage tanks for the fuel, although they have to have probes underneath them for leak checkage. But fiberglass lasts a long time, longer than steel, and that's the storage container.

So for all of you oput there, remember, there will allways be a need for a certain amount of fossil fuel. It just depends on what kind and how much.

[maeckg]

Like so many comments have noted: why is such an expert dismissing wind and pushing just one energy source as the solution? Diversity is more of a solution than any one technology. Is it not the monoculture of fossil fuels that have gotten us into this mess; I do not mean just environment issues, but that we are locked into ever rising fossil fuel production costs and resulting conflicts over resources.
Solar thermal makes sense in many places and can be scaled up, but wind is viable on different scales in many parts of the world. Other energy sources such as PV, biomass, landfill gas, wastestream, hydropower, hydrogen as well as nuclear and natural gas and in some areas heavy fossil fuels. Each can have their roles to provide the ever increasing needs of the soon to be 7 billion human population. That is what experts should be talking about, not just promoting one pet source.
Wind power has a long history, but not in the scale we are now installing. We have built huge aircraft and auto industries and the infrastructure to support them over decades. Wind power, and solar, uses much the same industrial and manufacturing processes, so it is not that we cannot build solid wind turbines and maintain them. Some of the comments about the problems with wind power poiint out issues that can be resolved and do not mention all the issues with other types of power plants that have more dire consequences: Chernobyl, oil refinery fires, gas tank explosions, tanker ship leaks, underground coal seam fires buning for decades, uncertain storage of nuclear waste, unknown costs of decommisioning of nuclear installations.
I personally see solar thermal as a significant energy source, but not at the expense of diversity. The idea to utilize the solar energy of the Sahara has been around a long time often with hydrogen as the energy carrier that could be piped to Europe, who have the means to pay. But it is just another massive scale idea like the natural gas pipeline from Russia and the import of oil. It continues energy dependency.

Germany, Denmark and Holland as well as other European countries do not have the natural fossil fuel resources, so wind, solar and other alternative sources are much more important than for USA and many other large area countries. Every locally produced gigawatt is crucial for them. France is larger and went down the nuclear path long ago at the expense of other technology. Spain and Italy could provide much of the solar thermal power needed by other EU countries.
We have it good here in the USA even with cleaner energy: we have enough wind energy locations to provide most our power if we only had the political will, but why ignore the advantages of other local sources and like was pointed out, avoid the loss of transmission. We also have enough excellent thermal power sites to provide more than what we would need for a growing economy. PV solar power installed on roofs does not use any land and can augment the grid. Just using PV to provide half the energy for most homes and businesses without harvesting it for the grid could mostly solve our power problems. We still could use the existing cleaner power plants for the base load of the grid as well as wind, geothermal, wastestream, etc
. What we need is a long term energy policy that allows businesses, industries and investors a clear direction to diversified, robust and cleaner energy. Then it will be plentiflul and afordable enough to continue enjoying the life that technology has brought us since it's exponential growth since 1750.

[gmhendo]

Don't understand where all the vitriol is coming from. Maybe stored solar energy has a place - let's hope so, it adds to the arsenal of alternative energy sources. I think we all accept that there is no magic bullet fix to the energy problem don't we? So a variety of sources is fine by me.
Yes the diurnal cycle is something, but there is a lot we can do to mitigate that effect. Like campaign for energy efficiency both in home and industry, work up eco symbiosis as a concept. See Kalunborg in Denmark or Kwinana in Australia for info on that concept.

[bgudgel]

He's should either just stick to physics or state things differently. ALL of these sources will be needed together if we want to wean off of fossil fuel energy. Not just one power source will be enough.
Wind energy is good too. Sometimes when there are clouds and his one power source doesn't quite work as well, the wind may be blowing.

boB