Wind turbines hit limits to growth before 50% wind power penetration

[Binkie The Clown]

More at the link

[font size=4]Material requirements of 50% wind power in the USA hit limits to growth[/font]

Wind turbines can’t be made forever because natural gas, coal, oil, uranium (thorium), neodymium, and other energy resources and minerals needed for wind turbines are finite, and the energy to recycle is limited.

Oil, the master resource, coal, and natural gas are required to make the millions of tons of steel, copper, fiberglass, plastic, epoxy, and concrete as well as deliver and maintain hundreds of thousands of wind turbines providing 50% or more of electricity as fossil fuels decline.

2,029,104,500 MWh = Wind power to equal 50% of annual electricity generation in 2013 (4,058,209,000 MWh / 2)
5,606.4 MWh power per year per 2 MW turbine (2 MW * .32 national average capacity * 24 hours * 365 days) summer
361,926 Number of 2 MW turbines required (2,029,104,500 MWh / 5,606.4 MWh) You’d need 531,318 wind turbines to allow for the lowest capacity of .218 in august 2013 (EIA).
Area required 104,586 square miles — the entire state of Colorado (361,926 2 MW turbines * 2 * 92.47 acres per MW) (AWEO)
Materials per 2 MW turbine in short tons: 265.5 steel, 1025.5 concrete, 39 iron, 3 copper, 24.3 fiberglass, 10 epoxy, 2.4 plastic (average of Elsam, Guezuraga), and rare earth metals neodymium 800 pounds, dysprosium 130 pounds (ED).

Much more at the link above.

Cornucopians are going to have to wake up to the reality of power down. The answer is not generating more energy. The answer is using less energy. A lot less energy. That is not a choice, but a necessity. How we address that necessity is up to us. We can power down gracefully, or we can power down kicking and screaming. But either way, we will power down.

[on point]

1. BS. The transition to other energy such as wind REPLACES those above. Plastics do require organic

feed stocks, though replacements from renewables are being developed all the time and will replace oil as source feedstock.

Above article is industry propaganda

[brush]

2. Sounds like BS meant to confuse . . .

what with all the alleged math formulas and pronouncements:


"There is only so much energy . . ."

"The answer is using less energy. A lot less energy. That is not a choice, but a necessity . . ."

"Oil, the master resource . . ."


They need to get the f_ck outta here with that crappola. Who comes up with that stuff and think that thinking people are going to buy it?

[DetlefK]

3. The real question is: How long must a wind-turbine run to produce enough energy for a second one?

I don't believe that wind-turbines are a large-scale energy-source of the future.
- They are too large.
- The voltage they create varies wildly from turbine to turbine, which is a HUGE problem for feeding it into the grid.
- As the article says, we will inevitably run out of the rare metals needed for the high-performance-magnets.



My bet is on organic photovoltaics for localized energy-production and fusion-reactors for distributed energy-production.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Claptrap and BS data. Your link says that 32,850 turbines = annual world petro consumption.

And then, in your post, you say we'd need 531,318 turbines.

http://energyskeptic.com/2014/an-overview/

That link, energyskeptic, is full of bullshit statements and deliberately misleading statements and conclusions.

Another example is found on their page that discusses the challenges of electrifying transportation.

I won't even link to it.

True, we can't go on forever like as we are living, and the renewable solution will be challenging and have to include decreased consumption and the combination of many sources, but this website/blog is nothing but negativity and lies.

[GliderGuider]

5. The world uses ~11,000 MTOE of fossil fuels per year (per BP Stat Rev)

1 MTOE generates 4400 GWh (4.4 TWh) of electricity in a modern power station (BP again).
So, the world gets the equivalent of a constant 5.6 TW of power from fossil fuels (11,000*4.4/8,650 = 5.6).
Replacing that with wind power would require 8.4 million 2MW turbines running at 33% capacity (5.6/2*3*1,000,000).

On a 20-year replacement cycle the world would have to build and install 420,000 2MW turbines per year - 840 GW of installed capacity per year.

Last year we installed 51.7 GW (http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/graphs/)

And that doesn't keep up with increasing demand, or take storage and distribution issues into account.

Lotta work.

Ain't gonna happen.

Not even close.

We're stuck with fossil fuels until the wheels fall off.

[FBaggins]

6. That's only true if...

... fossil fuels and wind are the only options.

They aren't.

[GliderGuider]

7. I'm not talking about solutions here, I'm just doing arithmetic.

Today, 87% of the world's primary energy comes from fossil fuels.

[Binkie The Clown]

8. Granted wind is not the only option, but...

it would be interesting to see what the EROEI is on those alternatives.

How many hundreds of square miles of solar panels would it take to make up the difference? And how many tons of copper? And how is that copper mined and smelted on solar or wind energy? And if we cover the entire state of Arizona in solar panels, how much steel and concrete and copper will it take to transmit that solar electricity to New York City?

I know true believers in the magic of technology will not shed their illusions easily, but I'm very much afraid that the reality is that we are well and royally screwed when fossil fuels run out. Technology is wonderful, and exciting, and I love technology. But technology is not energy. Nor can technology create energy.

[nationalize the fed]

9. A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen

Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever
Scientific American June 19, 2008

EAST AMWELL, N.J.—Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.

Although the device cost $500,000 to construct, and it is unlikely it will ever pay off financially (even with today's skyrocketing oil and gas prices), the civil engineer says it is priceless in terms of what it does buy: freedom from ever paying another heating or electric bill, not to mention keeping a lid on pollution, because water is its only by-product...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-house/

short version

New Jersey is not exactly known for sunshine

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Well, that changes everything.

All we need is for all families to have "capacious garages" and $500,000 in loose change lying about.

And what about the materials he purchased to build that system? Were they all created with solar or wind? Not a chance.

One ridiculously expensive demonstration project does not scale up to a global solution. The problem often seen with cornucopians and true believers in magic technology is the difference between theory and practice. Even if this were possible to scale up, theoretically, it's still not feasible economically. Our economy is oil based, and by the time people wake up realize they are in trouble, it will be too late to start building solar or wind or whatever, because the economy, without the support of cheap oil, will simple collapse under the weight of the project.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Keep it simple. Change behaviors, conserve, use roofs and parking lots, not the state of Arizona.

Nobody is going to send power from Arizona to NYC, so that's not an issue.

We're overpopulated and we live energy intensive lives, often in energy intensive places like the Northeast.

But we lived there before oil and before coal but it only worked because we were far fewer in numbers.

All this will change.

But I swear, that website is filled with bad calculus, such as their gloom and doom assessment of electrified transportation.

I just wrote three articles on electric vehicles: history, emerging technologies and challenges, and a buying guide. The first two have been published.

If we took all gasoline vehicles and converted them into electricity, we most definitely would be faced with an enormous new demand and need for generation, but that website overstates it by a factor of three or four.

That's why I call it claptrap.

[NYC_SKP]

11. I wasn't suggesting that the conclusions were wrong or that wind could ever provide 50%...

....I was only pointing out the crappiness of the presentation, the facts and lack of facts and inconsistencies.

That website and it's claims are anything but scholarly, but I can't argue with most of the conclusions, in general terms.