From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:29:32 GMT

In article <5218.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
> TI>When developing countries begin to industrialize, their electricity needs
> TI>will quickly outgrow what is available with solar and wind technology.
> TI>What then? Large units for baseload power, accented with smaller scale
> TI>generation for peak loads, etc.
> 
> You are making an invalid assumption. Why should their needs outgrow
> "what is available with solar and wind technology". Solar and wind
> technology is quite capable of supplying the needs of this country of
> 257 million. The harvestable wind of just 12 midwest states could supply

Depends on your definition of harvestable.  How about a reference describing
this for us?  Does it include giving plenty of clearance for roadways,
right-of-ways, towns and residences?  How about sensitive habitat, were
wetlands, forests, riparian environments, etc. eliminated from consideration?
How about conflict between agricultural uses and the wind farms?

> our needs on a competitive basis. Solar is rapidly becomming

Both supplying our needs and "competitive" need justification.  Supplying
our needs includes non-varying baseload requirements - but the wind is
not that cooperative.  However, I seriously doubt that long-term energy
storage (up to days at a time) has been included in the costing.  There
is also the problem of delivering that power from out in the middle of
nebraska somewhere to NY or whereever else the large demands are.  So
this massive midwest windfarm has not been demonstrated to supply our
needs.  Nor has it been demonstrated to be competitive.  What are the
cost estimates and what expenditures do they assume?  Also, do they
assume unproven improvements in technology?  The only competitive wind
farms I am aware of are in relatively unique environments with relatively
constant, high-speed, uni-directional or bi-directional winds (coastal
environments and certain mountain valleys).

> competitive and is fully capable of also meeting our needs.

This is also unproven for the same reasons.

> TI>I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million
> TI>or more, and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon
> TI>carries off the country's entire capacity of solar panels.
> 
> In most cases the solar panels will be firmly attached to the structures
> they power, and if the typhoon carries off the buildings, then they are
> in deeper trouble.

Firmly attached is also a relative term.  All those roofs in South Florida
were considered "firmly attached" as well, at least until they blew away.
The mounting systems I have seen for 1) PV panels, 2) hot water panels and
3) mirrors for the power tower; all would not survive the heavy winds of
a strong typhoon.  I'm talking about sustained winds in excess of 80 mph
and gusts over 120 mph.  That kind of typhoon is relatively common, they
come even more powerful, just like hurricanes.  Even with mounts strong
enough to keep them down in a big storm, the panels will be destroyed
by the first chunk of wind-borne debris that smashes into them.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov