Thursday, October 28, 2010

The Wind Power of Exponential Growth

text describing the image

And 22.8% annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years to 447.7 GW by Dec 31, 2014. That's equivalent to approx. 447 nuclear plants worth of generating capacity.
BTM estimates that global installed cumulative capacity will increase at a CAGR of 22.8% between 2009 and 2014, reaching 447,689MW by the end of 2014.
45 GW more projected for 2011 alone.
Wind turbine installations will bounce back in 2011 after stalling this year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Turbines with an electricity-generation capacity of 45 gigawatts are likely to be erected next year, up from about 37.7 gigawatts this year.
Wind Power Turbine Installations Forecast to Rebound in 2011 After Slump


  1. Still nothing, eh? Happy Halloween anyway!

  2. Have you read Joe Romm's scathing despair replaces hope post on Obama'a failed presidency? Heck of a job, fella.

    In 2008, when I explained why Obama had no climate bona fides and McCain was a better choice for climate voters, the climateprogess crowd called me a bunch of names and Joe banned me from the site. Oh, sweet irony.

  3. Paul, Do you really believe it will be that bad?

    "And so the chances have dropped sharply of averting multiple catastrophes post-2040 — widespread Dust-Bowlification; multi-feet sea level rise followed by SLR of 6 to 12+ inches a decade until the planet is ice free; massive species loss; the ocean turning into large, hot acidified dead zones; and ever-strengthening superstorms that bring devastation to country after country that equals or surpasses what happened to Moscow and Pakistan and Nashville and New Orleans."


  4. No I don't. I do believe the kind of over the top doomsday catastrophism promoted at climateprogress is a major reason the general public is turned off by the climate debate.

  5. Paul,

    That's an over the top doomsday scenario you're slinging there, amigo. Best loosen up at SciGuy first.

    While Dr. Joe Romm & co. may occasionally throw a hard left uppercut -- try making honest critiques about his latest book -- his blog is an indispensable read to many serious citizens trying to comprehend the complex policy issues & navigate the difficult decisions already upon us in order to protect our grandchildren's heritage.

    But it's his playground; so, if you want to play, play by the rules.

  6. Paul, Can you help me understand this:

    You are banned from commenting at a site you don't whole-heartedly endorse. You continue to visit and keep tabs on the posts. Currently, things are not going their way and you appear to be pleased since you predicted this event previously and you feel vindicated.

    Please don't think I am being snarky or judgmental, I am just trying to understand. Is this an accurate summary of the situation?

  7. gabriellyn,

    climateprogress was the first climate oriented blog I visited and was the conduit for much of what I know about climate science.

    My main interest in energy transformation. As IANVS notes, the hyper partisanship and uber impact predictions aside, CP is a good source of info in that area. Also it is always wise to expose oneself to differing viewpoints, lest one get trapped in dogmatic thought.

    Do I get some satisfaction in being right? Sure, and I bring it here because a) IANVS can use the traffic and b) He's an old pal from those days.


    Don't go to SciGuy much anymore. His climate posts tend to generate the same arguments endlessly repeated. One benefit of being banned at CP is I discovered stoat, which is where I mostly hang out now.

  8. Paul, Thank you for your well reasoned response. Although the banned issue would kill it for me, personally, other viewpoints notwithstanding.

  9. Paul,

    Hat tip, old chap.

    As much as it might surprise our resident league of lurkers [lol], SciGuy has become a more civil Houston venue thanks to the indefatigable efforts of its right-of-center moderator.

    Generally speaking, cerebral discussion is now possible at times with some new regulars who think before they post. JohnD comes to mind, & there are a few others, including, perhaps, our dear gabriellyn, if you cut her enough slack for being only a girl. [Zing!]

    So, pull up a chair & chat it up down in Big Oil Central. Our ongoing & sometimes circuitous -- no little thanks to gabriellyn -- discussions of renewable energies & subsidies & EVs vs hybrids are probably a good place to start.

    However, best don your thinking cap before posting. We can be both wordly & factually ruthless.

  10. I am too tired to come up with a better reply: :P

    IANVS, you are on notice.

  11. re: cerebral discussion is now possible at times Occasionally. Mostly it is just a roundabout of conservative v. lib ideology, wind/solar plugs (who could that be) punctuated with wise, thought provoking one-liners (graciously provided by yours truly). Of course there are the usual assortment of characters thrown into the mix. JohnD is (almost) scary smart and his command of English vocabulary is formidable, to put it mildly.

    Re: "circuitous" - I do get distracted at times, true. Better to meander than get stuck in a rut, as some are wont to do. Repetitive arguing gets a little dull after the 12 millionth iteration.

    But all in all, it's great entertainment with a bit of edification thrown in.

    IANVS, [Zing!] me all you want. Sticks and stones and all that...