Google analytics

Sunday, 13 March 2011

3TW of Green power?

Here’s a number you need to keep in mind: 3 Terawatts. That’s about how much power They’re using in the USA right now.

If that were used for 100W incandescent bulbs you’d need 30 billion bulbs.

There’s no way renewable energy is going to come close to that.

That would require over 2 billion square meters of 100% efficient solar panels: that’s about the same area as all the land in Rhode Island (real solar panels are about 25% efficient so you’d need to pave Delaware’s land as well). And of course solar panels don’t do too well at night, so you’d need to at least double that area, that brings us to the land area of Hawaii, plus you’d need a way to store around 40 TWh’s which simply doesn’t exist. And all that ignores factors such as clouds, dirt, animals, etc.

So what about wind? The most powerful wind turbine today is ~7 MW, so you’d need around 500,000 of them. They have a rotor diameter of 126m, so they’d have to be at least 65m apart. That means they’d take up 6 billion square meters, about the same as all of Delaware. I can’t imagine it would be good for anything flying. Now this is the peak power, so we’d have to factor in all the time that the wind isn’t blowing hard enough, or when it’s blowing too hard. Again we need a storage system for mind-boggling amounts of energy. Also, has anyone looked at the climatological effects of taking 3TW of convective energy out of the atmosphere?

Both solar and wind suffer from a fatal flaw: They can’t be controlled. Grid operators can’t dial supply up (They can somewhat do down) to meet demand, and when you’re talking about the electric grid either you balance it or it balances itself…usually in some exciting manner.

Hydro’s pretty much tapped out in that country, not to mention ecomentalists flip their shit whenever someone mentions building dams. Same thing with geothermal, unless we want to start drilling in Yellowstone.

Nuclear could do it, but whenever you mention it the ecomentalists set a record in going from zero to stupid.

That leaves fossil fuels. There’s nothing else. Especially when it comes to moving stuff. We have nothing that comes close to the power density of hydrocarbons when it comes to mobile applications, and hydrocarbons are the only energy source that’s suitable for mobile applications. Everything else (e.g. hydrogen and ethanol) are just ways to make electricity mobile.


  1. Wind turbines need to be a damn sight further apart than 65 metres. There is the small matter of wave vortices to consider. A detailed study carried out on the Horns Rev site off the coast of Jutland found a very significant reduction in power output from the turbines behind the front row.

    In reality you would probably get as much (if not more) electricity from fewer well spaced turbines than the current (sic) closely spaced farms. But that wouldn't attract so much in the way of subsidies...

    They say a picture paints a thousand words:

  2. Captain Haddock14 March 2011 at 19:10

    Wind Power ..

    Which explains perfectly why that all round, touring & international tosser Huhne is as dim as a Toc-H lamp ..

  3. There's none so pure as the greenified

  4. Captain Haddock15 March 2011 at 09:28

    "There's none so pure as the greenified" ..

    That's not what the Sick-Bay "Tiff" told me mate .. ;)


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.