From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:57:52 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul22171433@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul23.145515.7912@vexcel.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.145515.7912@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Jul22171433@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul22.221159.19297@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   >   In article <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >
   >   Wind power could be the dominant energy supply in the upper plains and if
   >   the grid has the capacity to distribute it, the power could be a 
   >   non-trivial (10's of %) part of the U.S. energy supply.

   >US concumption is about 10TW of which 3TW is grid,
   >mean wind speed is about 6 m/s - if you have a 1km
   >turbine, assuming wind power can be regenerated by solar
   >heating on a time scale of 10**5 seconds, you need an
   >area of 2d16 cm**2 to get 1TW. That's 1000miles square,
   >100% extraction. What do you think the climate impact
   >would be, even if it could be done?

   I have in front of me a graph of the U.S. that indicates that if we had
   100% extraction of wind potential from a band of states in the center
   of the U.S., we could supply 90% of current U.S. electricity demands.

That is precisely what the numbers above show. I assumed a generous
1000m height for extraction efficiency, and a 1000x1000mile strip,
in practise you'd want longer, thin strips with spacing of order
the turbulent mixing length. That is, extracting _all_ the wind energy
from the lower atmosphere across the US would just about provide
for the current grid demand! (Note wind energy is replenished on
100,000s time scale).
	I assert, and claim it is incumbent on the proponents to prove
otherwise, that to extract all the wind energy across the mid US would
cause a local climactic pertubation large compared to any projected
greenhouse heating, and that to attempt to extract more than 10% would
be suicidally foolish. That ignores the indirect impact such as land
use, bird kill and distruption of migration patterns.

   I have no idea what the climate effects would be.  Have there been any
   effects at the wind farms in CA?

You're talking a 3-4 order of magnitude change in scale! 

   >   Studies of possible electricity savings for the U.S. based on studies
   >   of currently used versus currently available technology in the U.S. range from
   >   about 75% on the liberal side (from RMI) to 44% on the lower (from the EPRI).
   >   The 44% figure is the maximum _MTP_ figure which assumes full
   >   utilization of the best existing technology.  

   >I'm puzzled, is the study for all uses or for domestic uses only?

   Residential, commercial and industrial.

Paul notes this a saving from _projected_ demand! Big difference,
that way the numbers actually make sense...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment