YB So, wind power, solar power we had a lot to talk about.

TBP I lost 150 million on the wind, okay.

Wind and solar can't help, because so far we don't have a way to store that energy.

Denmark's electricity sector has integrated energy sources such as wind power into the national grid.

Wind energy Wind energy is the kinetic energy of air in motion, also called wind.

A number of initiatives are working to reduce costs of electricity from offshore wind.

But one of the things we're discovering is that wind, like solar, is an actually relatively dilute source of energy.

If the wire is connected through an electrical load, current will flow, and thus electrical energy is generated, converting the mechanical energy of motion to electrical energy.

It's a longer payback than mountaintop removal, but the wind energy actually pays back forever.

And at the time I went into the wind business, natural gas was nine dollars.

It's supposed to be, I don't know, local solar and wind and cogeneration, and good things like that.

The 1973 petroleum crisis inspired Oberth to look into alternative energy sources, including a plan for a wind power station that could utilize the jet stream.

Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.

To power the entire world with 50 percent wind, you would need about one percent of world land.

Obama also mentioned that he had raised fuel economy standards for cars in the US, and had invested in renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power.

So my premise here is that nuclear energy puts out more carbon dioxide, puts out more air pollutants, enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems, namely wind, solar, geothermal power, hydro tidal wave power.

And we could do that by perfectly sensible things like conservation, and wind power, nuclear power and coal to CO2 capture, which are all things that are ready for giant scale deployment, and work.

According to one estimate, of the potential wind energy in the jet stream, only 1 percent would be needed to meet the world's current energy needs.

So and then when you compare the lifetime emissions of these various energy forms, nuclear is about even with solar and wind, and ahead of solar oh, I'm sorry with hydro and wind, and ahead of solar.

So when somebody says, Let's go more nuclear, let's go wind, let's go solar, fine I'm for anything American, anything American.

Boeing also contributed to wind power development with the experimental MOD 2 Wind Turbines for NASA and the United States Department of Energy, and the MOD 5B for Hawaii.

It could be something like a wind farm.

And the chart here shows the difference between the emissions from the regular grid, resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else, versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.

So from your point of view, you had this great Pickens Plan that was based on wind energy, and you abandoned it basically because the economics changed.

And all the components are there which are now in common parlance, in our vocabulary, you know, 30 odd years later wind energy, recycling, biomass, solar cells.

But she also saw the difference in potential wind energy on an intact mountain, and one that was reduced in elevation by over 2,000 feet.

I would love to have something in the fourth place here, but in terms of constant, clean, scalable energy, solar and wind and the other renewables aren't there yet because they're inconstant.

In 2014, energy sources were oil (35.0 ) coal, including lignite (24.6 ) natural gas (20.5 ) nuclear (8.1 ) hydro electric and renewable sources (11.1 ).

And that doesn't even count, for example, that available land in the Dakotas can cost effectively make enough wind power to run every highway vehicle in the country.

So we actually sort of designed the entire island as a single ecosystem, exploiting wind energy to drive the desalination plants, and to use the thermal properties of water to heat and cool the buildings.

Unless you look at the system as a way to treat waste water, sequester carbon, and potentially for photovoltaic panels or wave energy or even wind energy, and if you start thinking in terms of integrating all of these different activities, you could also include in such a facility aquaculture.

So if you add these two together, alone, you can see a separation that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.

If in the time that it took me to walk out here on this stage, some tens of megawatts of wind power stopped pouring into the grid, the difference would have to be made up from other generators immediately.

For wind, there's a larger area, but much smaller footprint.

TBP Solar and wind, Jim and I agreed on that in 13 seconds.

Now if we go to the area, lots is worse than nuclear or wind.

The wind transports dust and other particles which erodes the relief and leaves deposits (eolian processes).

CA So what happened was that, through increased ability to use fracking technology, the calculated reserves of natural gas kind of exploded and the price plummeted, which made wind uncompetitive.

Even without active incentives, McKinsey predicts more than 25 percent of total energy across Africa in 2040 will come from clean sources such as geothermal, hydro, solar and wind. The IEA projects solar energy will power mini grid and off grid systems in rural areas in the region by 2040, and account for more than 30 percent of capacity additions between 2030 and 2040. South Africa aptly demonstrates what could be the beginning of a subtle shift in this direction.

So when you add up the greenhouse gases in the lifetime of these various energy sources, nuclear is down there with wind and hydro, below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.

Europe and Canada pledged 10 billion toward an ambitious project called the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative, which aims to install ten gigawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal capacity by the end of the decade.

Such processes could include water or wind erosion, sedimentation, hydrothermal mechanisms, volcanism, and cratering.

Wind takes about two to five years on average, same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.

So the difference is the opportunity cost of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.

Denmark is a long time leader in wind energy, and Denmark derived 3.1 of its gross domestic product from renewable (clean) energy technology and energy efficiency, or around 6.5 billion ( 9.4 billion).