Practical considerations
fThis article raises way more questions than it answers. The important bit is this: "the future of wind energy will be determined by economic, political and technical constraints, rather than global geophysical limits. That's an important message that we all need to hear.
In the final analysis, the power that gets built is the power that makes economic and environmental sense. Wind and solar have important roles to play, but are unable to reliably provide the majority of our power needs. As wind penetration rises past 10-15% the cost increases and the emissions avoided decline more and more sharply for each additional increment because of the rising costs and emissions associated with the larger and larger amounts of low-utilization standby generation from fossil fueled units that is required. The same concept applies to solar power.
The only technology capable of reliably and economically providing CO2 free power in large amounts will continue to be nuclear power. The new 3rd generation units now under construction at several locations around the globe will be significantly safer and eventually significantly cheaper to build and operate than current plants. Fukushima has thrown people into an emotionally driven rejection of the very technology that we need to embrace, but we need to get past the fear and examine all the evidence before turning away from the best option to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Beyond 3rd generation units like the AP-1000 (1100 Mw output, equivalent to 750 5 Mw windmills at 30% capacity factor) are 4th generation units that will not only be incapable of melting down but able to run for centuries burning the "waste" from current plants to recover the 99% of energy remaining in it.
This is the path China and India are planning for, but we will be late to the game unless we apply more logic and less emotion to designing our energy future.
