Town Square

Post a New Topic

Scientists: Wind could meet world power needs by 2030

Original post made on Sep 11, 2012

Wind holds enough energy to meet or exceed the world's total demand for power by 2030, according to new research from Stanford University and the University of Delaware.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 12:07 PM

Comments (19)

Posted by Tea Party says, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Tea Party says wind energy sounds too much like Al Gore. Republicans will kill it, no matter how many jobs it creates. Besides, hurting those oil companies is forbidden.


Posted by Greg, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm

>The model assumed wind turbines could be installed anywhere and everywhere, without regard to societal, environmental, climatic or economic considerations.

With those considerations, imaginie what nuclear power could achieve!


Posted by Reddy Watt, a resident of The Greenhouse
on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm

"imaginie what nuclear power could achieve"

I have. A big steaming pile of... radiation.

Last week, CA's solar plants passed a milestone: 1,000 megawatts during a spare the air day. Did not include rooftop solar production.

Germany continues to lead the way; in May they surpassed 22,000 megawatts:

"Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs."


Posted by Greg, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm

For a perspective, read James Lovelock, the major domo environmentalist (Gaia theory), who now supports nuclear energy, and opposes wind energy, as the major solution.

Web Link


Posted by More-From-Stanford--Big-Wind-Or-Hot-Air, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm

If the Stanford people believe their own research, then they could put their money where their mouth is--and go open a couple wind farms and how us how it's done. Building mathematical models is a lot different from actually running the businesses that they claim can produce all of this power.

Sadly .. people at places like Stanford can say pretty much anything they want--whether its right, or wrong.


Posted by Greg, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm

>Sadly .. people at places like Stanford can say pretty much anything they want--whether its right, or wrong.

How true. Remember Paul Ehrlich?


Posted by Reddy Watt, a resident of Meadow Park
on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Sadly, sounds like a bunch of the same rhetoric from the flat earthers.

Look back a few years:

"climate change is a hoax"

"it isn't caused by man"

"solar will never work"

"what about nightime?"

Wrong then, wrong now.

Gary will come back with his pseudonyms and tell us about Lovelock's supposed change of heart and all the other deniers, soon enough.


Posted by More-From-Stanford--Big-Wind-Or-Hot-Air, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm

> "climate change is a hoax"

Anyone who has ever taken Geology 101 comes to realize that "climate change" is a natural process that goes on continuously--sometimes driven by subtle forces, and other times, by violent ones--such a massive volcanic activity.

The question on the table is: "Is Man causing climate to change in a way that is outside the parameters of natural change?" For the most part, this question is still in the air--with the exception of the claims of Al Gore, who does not seem to have ever taken a science class.


Posted by Reddy Watt, a resident of Meadow Park
on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm

"For the most part, this question is still in the air"

Keep that head in the sand. You are nice and safe there. No need to worry yourself with reality. Just remember, when you lift your head out, always have your tinfoil hat close by!

As I said: "Sadly, sounds like a bunch of the same rhetoric from the flat earthers."

Web Link



Posted by Donald, a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm

The important question is NOT: "Is Man causing climate to change in a way that is outside the parameters of natural change?" Natural change has produced some very extreme conditions, but we were not here to have to deal with them. I am sure that the earth itself will survive whatever we throw at it, but the human race might not do so.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:27 pm

"Norbert Allnoch ... said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday..."

Reporters should be warned against using units of gigawatts per hour.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:16 am

Well, if what the Stanford folks say is true, I recommend they put some money into a wind company and make a fortune. If not...it is like Gore et al screaming about 'rising oceans' while buying beach front property. I don't believe it.


Posted by More-From-Stanford--Big-Wind-Or-Hot-Air, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2012 at 8:32 am

> Natural change has produced some very extreme conditions,
> but we were not here to have to deal with them.

True. Certainly the extreme climate changes doing periods of glaciations were very destructive to certain life forms. Moreover, there were events called: "Mass Extinctions" that have come to the attention of geologists during the last few decades, that seem to have been triggered by "natural" events that are of magnitude that we humans would not likely be able to "control" them, or trigger them—via our activities.

These "extreme events" provide one set of "outside parameters" of climate variables. An "inside" set needs to be determined which are not nearly as extreme, and which might be subject to the forces that man might be able to exert against "the environment".

Glaciations seem to occur often enough, but we are probably so far away from the next on-set of an "ice time" that it's not worth talking about. Asteroid "hits" are also not some thing that we all can agree are outside man's influence to cause. We probably will need to put together some sort of "defense" one of these days. However, it's very possible that man might not be able to stop asteroids above a given size, leaving us vulnerable to future mass extinction events that would probably be brought on by something akin to "global cooling".

So.. for the near term, we should be trying to link (or prove a lack of linkage) between man's activities and "climate change" that can not be considered as "extreme".


Posted by whole picture, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2012 at 11:19 am

This is merely (much-needed) hypothetical boundary calculation here, it leaves out the two great challenges of wind power since the wind does not always blow, and is distributed globally without regard to the populace in need of energy: how to move the captured energy to the demand and how to store it for use when the wind dies seasonally or daily.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm

While we're on hypothetical boundary calculations, how much would 380 terawatts slow the Earth's rotation?


Posted by dave , a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:43 pm

A major problem would be moving the energy from, for example, the Gobi Desert to a large, populated area. There is always some transmission line loss e.g. so many percent per X number of miles - maybe the Stanford professors could calculate this. It's a long way from the sites mentioned to here or Europe.

No one has mentioned the number of birds likely to be killed unless the turbines are so designed as to prevent them from running into the blades. I believe there are thousands yearly in the East Bay Hills alone, and that's a small wind farm.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:44 am

Wind is a pretty good idea. If AMBRI/LMB Corporation every gets their liquid batteries working at a large scale wind and solar could be much more effective.

The one thing I noticed is that on the drive down to LA there is location where there are a lot of windmills all of them different sizes and turning at different speeds, and late at night when I was tired it was damn hard to drive through that area because it was so distracting. Then there is the bird killing problem.


Posted by boundary calculation, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:36 am

"While we're on hypothetical boundary calculations, how much would 380 terawatts slow the Earth's rotation?"

No worries. Just have Superman do a couple orbits at supersonic speed and it catches up.

Or was it flying backwards and it reverses time?


Posted by scarystuff, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:02 am

Wind Energy not Wind! Thought it is another global warming warning stuff. Thanks Editor


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,722 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,937 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,094 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,089 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 684 views