4 ms·

I started reading it and admiring their attention to detail with the first two charts. Extremely clear and informative: http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEne

I started reading it and admiring their attention to detail with the first two charts. Extremely clear and informative: http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergytechfig3-1340889659713.jpg http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergytechfig3-134088965... Then it went down hill fast, culminating in stuff like this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergyFigIcon3-1340126783409.jpg http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergyFigIcon3-134012678... and http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergyFigIcon5-1340201830000.jpg http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/07OLAltEnergyFigIcon5-134020183... Edit: spelling.

rayiner 14y ago
I'm not sure what to make of that last chart... it's showing wind power increasing from 0.09% to 2.91% in only 20 years (which is the blink of an eye in an industry that moves as glacially slow as electricity production--Chicago just this year shut down a couple of coal plants that were over a century old). If the trend holds up then in another 20 years alms tall our electricity will be produced by wind!
- mc32 14y ago
  I think his point about that is that promises of renewables replacing traditional sources in ten and twenty year time-frames (such as the proponents he cites) is wildly optimistic. I think the time frames to adoption and ramp-up to significant share are his main points of contention, via a vis boosters of renewables as solution to our energy problems.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It seems like a very "neener-neener" argument to me. Okay, so what, proponents of wind and solar a decade ago were overly optimistic about how quickly such technologies would take over. NASA scientists also thought we'd be going to Mars by 2025. What does that prove? At the end of the day, the installed capacity of wind power has tripled in just the last several years. The price of solar panels has fallen through the floor. A number of U.S. states are seeing immediate local benefits from supplying > 10% of their electricity through wind power. I'm not quite sure why "% of global electricity consumption" is the only salient metric. Even if Texas's gas guzzling keeps the overall % low, Iowa still has cleaner air by supplying 14% of its electricity needs through wind power.
    - mc32 14y ago
      > NASA scientists also thought we'd be going to Mars by 2025. What does that prove? We don't _have_ to go to Mars tomorrow. We _do_ need energy right now. Panel prices have fallen through the floor, but panels are only one component in the PV energy production cycle. He cites that residential PV production cost per kW/h hasn't changed significantly since the 2000's. (~¢30 sunny and ~¢60 cloudy areas) traditional production means average 11 to ¢12 kW/h. >A number of U.S. states are seeing immediate local benefits from supplying > 10% of their electricity through wind power. That's definitely a positive outcome, but an investment in anything will bring jobs (tearing up roads and repaving). I think he's trying to find out it it makes economic sense to invest in wind power versus something else. I think it's debatable, at least. He might be proven wrong, but so might others. >I'm not quite sure why "% of global electricity consumption" is the only salient metric I think it's because his main point is about trying to prevent going over the 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere --which isn't regionally manifested but globally manifested.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Depends on whether the take up is linear or exponential.
- ars 14y ago
  > If the trend holds up then in another 20 years alms tall our electricity will be produced by wind The entire point of the article is that these trends don't hold up! It's very easy to grow fast when starting from nothing.
uvdiv 14y ago
I actually think that first chart is the bad one. Inconsistent mixture of US/global, best/average. And inconsistent presentation -- why the single dot on "best wind farms/global average: 21%"?. The data should be visually grouped by energy type. Range bars are important, for example to show the enormous latitude/climate variation for solar PV (10-25%). You could squeeze far more data into this graphic, and more clearly.

rayiner 14y ago

I'm not sure what to make of that last chart... it's showing wind power increasing from 0.09% to 2.91% in only 20 years (which is the blink of an eye in an industry that moves as glacially slow as electricity production--Chicago just this year shut down a couple of coal plants that were over a century old). If the trend holds up then in another 20 years alms tall our electricity will be produced by wind!

mc32 14y ago
I think his point about that is that promises of renewables replacing traditional sources in ten and twenty year time-frames (such as the proponents he cites) is wildly optimistic. I think the time frames to adoption and ramp-up to significant share are his main points of contention, via a vis boosters of renewables as solution to our energy problems.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It seems like a very "neener-neener" argument to me. Okay, so what, proponents of wind and solar a decade ago were overly optimistic about how quickly such technologies would take over. NASA scientists also thought we'd be going to Mars by 2025. What does that prove? At the end of the day, the installed capacity of wind power has tripled in just the last several years. The price of solar panels has fallen through the floor. A number of U.S. states are seeing immediate local benefits from supplying > 10% of their electricity through wind power. I'm not quite sure why "% of global electricity consumption" is the only salient metric. Even if Texas's gas guzzling keeps the overall % low, Iowa still has cleaner air by supplying 14% of its electricity needs through wind power.
  - mc32 14y ago
    > NASA scientists also thought we'd be going to Mars by 2025. What does that prove? We don't _have_ to go to Mars tomorrow. We _do_ need energy right now. Panel prices have fallen through the floor, but panels are only one component in the PV energy production cycle. He cites that residential PV production cost per kW/h hasn't changed significantly since the 2000's. (~¢30 sunny and ~¢60 cloudy areas) traditional production means average 11 to ¢12 kW/h. >A number of U.S. states are seeing immediate local benefits from supplying > 10% of their electricity through wind power. That's definitely a positive outcome, but an investment in anything will bring jobs (tearing up roads and repaving). I think he's trying to find out it it makes economic sense to invest in wind power versus something else. I think it's debatable, at least. He might be proven wrong, but so might others. >I'm not quite sure why "% of global electricity consumption" is the only salient metric I think it's because his main point is about trying to prevent going over the 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere --which isn't regionally manifested but globally manifested.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Depends on whether the take up is linear or exponential.
ars 14y ago
> If the trend holds up then in another 20 years alms tall our electricity will be produced by wind The entire point of the article is that these trends don't hold up! It's very easy to grow fast when starting from nothing.

uvdiv 14y ago

I actually think that first chart is the bad one. Inconsistent mixture of US/global, best/average. And inconsistent presentation -- why the single dot on "best wind farms/global average: 21%"?. The data should be visually grouped by energy type. Range bars are important, for example to show the enormous latitude/climate variation for solar PV (10-25%). You could squeeze far more data into this graphic, and more clearly.