EU Plans To Increase Offshore Windfarm Capacity By 250% (theguardian.com) 111
The capacity of the EU's offshore windfarms in the North Sea, the Baltic, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea will be increased by 250% under a draft plan drawn up by the European commission. The Guardian reports: The total energy generating capacity in Europe's seas stands at 23 gigawatts (GW), from 5,047 grid-connected wind turbines across 12 countries, including the UK. Under a European commission strategy, the 27 EU member states alone would achieve a capacity of 60GW by 2030 and 300GW by 2050, with Germany set to hugely increase its investment in the sector.
According to the leaked paper, the commission "estimates that an installed capacity of 300GW of offshore wind [and around 60GW of ocean energies] by 2050 would be needed in the integrated, greener and climate neutral energy system of 2050." The commission writes: "This is feasible for a sector where Europe has gained unrivalled technological, scientific and industrial experience and where strong capacity exists already across the supply chain, from manufacturing to shipping and installation. Nonetheless, it is a very challenging horizon. It means that offshore renewable energy capacity should be multiplied by 25 times by 2050. The investment needed is estimated up to 789 billion pounds."
The UK, which left the EU in January, has the largest amount of offshore wind capacity in Europe, with 45% of all installations. Germany is second with 34%, followed by Denmark (8%), Belgium (7%) and the Netherlands (5%). Over the summer, the German government said it would also increase its current 7.5GW of capacity to 20GW by 2030, with a target of 40GW by 2040. But the European commission has called for a more "resolute" approach across the bloc. According to a leak of the strategy obtained by the Euractiv news website, the "very challenging" target for new windfarms would come with an expected price tag of 789 billion pounds, creating 62,000 jobs in the offshore wind industry.
According to the leaked paper, the commission "estimates that an installed capacity of 300GW of offshore wind [and around 60GW of ocean energies] by 2050 would be needed in the integrated, greener and climate neutral energy system of 2050." The commission writes: "This is feasible for a sector where Europe has gained unrivalled technological, scientific and industrial experience and where strong capacity exists already across the supply chain, from manufacturing to shipping and installation. Nonetheless, it is a very challenging horizon. It means that offshore renewable energy capacity should be multiplied by 25 times by 2050. The investment needed is estimated up to 789 billion pounds."
The UK, which left the EU in January, has the largest amount of offshore wind capacity in Europe, with 45% of all installations. Germany is second with 34%, followed by Denmark (8%), Belgium (7%) and the Netherlands (5%). Over the summer, the German government said it would also increase its current 7.5GW of capacity to 20GW by 2030, with a target of 40GW by 2040. But the European commission has called for a more "resolute" approach across the bloc. According to a leak of the strategy obtained by the Euractiv news website, the "very challenging" target for new windfarms would come with an expected price tag of 789 billion pounds, creating 62,000 jobs in the offshore wind industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland has more potential capacity than the rest of Western Europe combined with over 30GW of potential. Given that long run independence is now looking inevitable now are bulk carriers of raw iron from Scotland and iron oxide back the future or will Scotland be a centre for methane synthesis? What's the best route for a HVDC connection to Norway and is that a good place to build pumped hydro storage for Scotland's spare electrical power?
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland ha enough places for pumped storage itself.
And your 30GW capacity is meaningless without a context, if you want to talk about wind, then you are off by 2 or 3 magnitudes. If it is pumped storage, then you should mean GWh, not GW.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The current proposed connection to Norway is NorthConnect which is from Peterhead to Simadalen. The connection is only 1400MW, so additional European and English connections are required to utilise the full capacity of Scottish offshore wind. However the next biggest wind resource is Northern England so sending the power south seems slightly pointless. The next steps are to have a DC busbar in the North Sea with multiple infeed's to allow better power distribution between North Sea nations without only h
Re: (Score:2)
What's the best route for a HVDC connection to Norway and is that a good place to build pumped hydro storage for Scotland's spare electrical power?
Why the hell would you go to Norway for that if you already have Scotland?
Re: (Score:2)
Scottish wind power is greatest in winter which matches well with Norway's heating demand, so Scotland would be able to help heat Norway in winter. At the same time Norway has considerable spare potential pumped storage capacity [greentechmedia.com] which could be charged from Scotland when the wind blows and used by Germany when they have energy needs.
Scotland's remaining pumped hydro capacity is not that great. The valleys in Scotland don't have quite as good shapes as the ones available in Norway and the existing schemes i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a long time, one of the biggest limits on the development of Scottish wind power has been limited by interconnect through to England - the biggest problem being the UK/English government. The current proposed Norway connection would give 1.4GW of transmission - that's a big sale of energy and a big benefit to Scotland's economy. The power transmission from Norway to Germany is soon to be 2.8GW, which means that Scotland could not on its own fill that capacity if you add transmission towards Denmark an
How much? (Score:2)
250% is not a 25 times increase. ....
Re: (Score:2)
What a mess this article is.
23GW to 60GW isn't even a 250% increase, it's 160% increase.
And then 23 to 300 (or 300 +60) isn't x25 either.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do know that everyone else on the planet - except nitpickers like you - calls that an 250% "increase"?
Re: (Score:3)
Except this was a mistake by EURACTIV, which as probably the Guardian's source. EURACTIV have since withdrawn that figure [euractiv.com] - they meant 25 times:
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the EU would aim for a 250% growth in offshore wind by 2050.
They still haven't fixed the "European offshore capacity stands at 23 gigawatts" figure, which includes the UK numbers. The figures in the Rueters article [reuters.com] figures exclude the UK, so list current European capacity as 12 GW:
A draft of the European Commission’s strategy for offshore renewable energy, seen by Reuters and due to be published on Nov. 18, says the bloc should aim for 60 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 and 300GW by 2050. Its current capacity is 12GW.
12 GW * 25 is indeed 300 GW.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably why it’s a “draft” plan, not a full blown plan.
Brexit (Score:1, Funny)
Re: Brexit (Score:2)
It could work... (Score:4, Funny)
If they locate them as close to Brussels as possible, where there's a constant very high surplus of hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
If they locate them as close to Brussels as possible, where there's a constant very high surplus of hot air.
You have clearly never been to Westminster. All you have to do is build a bunch of wind farms in a circular pattern around parliament and you can power the whole planet.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried that, however even with 10 miles separation and the machines turned off for safety, when Boris came up for Prime minister's questions all of the wind turbines just got blown over.
At what value... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go by the climate scientists we only have 9ish years left, they are planing for 30 years in the future.
As the climate warms, the winds grow stronger, and the ROI on the turbines improves.
They will likely pay for themselves before the world ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Turbines are already built as high as possible. Wind speed scales the higher you get from the ground (or the sea). I found what looks like an interesting simulator when I put "wind turbine speed hub height" into duckduckgo: https://www.homerenergy.com/pr... [homerenergy.com]
Czisch study gets overlooked (Score:2)
http://https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid/ [https]
It's a mystery me to why the studies by Dr Gregor Czisch aren't better known to those of us with a keen interest in energy policy. I've seen neither support nor refutation.
My suspicion is that they have been rejected out of hand on political grounds and not technical ones. Cooperation is required from North African states, Russia and the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
http://https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid/ [https]
Your link is broken. Here is the proper URL: http://https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid [wikipedia.org]
Cooperation is required from North African states, Russia and the UK.
Russian cooperation is not needed. They add little value and for geopolitical reasons, should be excluded.
For North Africa, all the EU needs is cooperation from Morocco. Morocco is the closest and has enough sunny locations to build out as much solar as the EU wants. Just run an HVDC line under the Straits of Gibraltar.
Re: (Score:2)
Psst, your racism is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supergrid looks like a good idea to me, I've always thought it'd be ideal to import Solar derived electricity from Africa.
Rare earths required (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rare earths required (Score:4, Informative)
A generator does not require any rare earths.
They are used because they make the magnets stronger and lighter.
And there is nothing special to dig up, they are made from Neodym, which is a waste product from other metal refinements.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are going claim that the materials enabling smaller and more structurally efficient wind turbines aren't required, then you need to reform the economic case for the much heavier rare-earth-free generators. Adding mass at the top has a snowballing effect, substantially increasing the size of everything down to the foundation, construction, and transportation costs. If it were economical, they wouldn't be using rare earths. Either way, it requires a whole lot of mining, and you are back to square one p
Re: (Score:3)
Static weight on the top of the turbine matters very little. The overwhelming load consideration for a turbine is air pressure on the blades. That increases tremendously while they are spinning and harvesting power.
Direct drive generators with rare earth magnets are preferred offshore because of lower maintenance and improved efficiency, but in fact are *heavier* than induction. Induction motors use a gear box that is prone to wearing out but allows for a much smaller, lighter, faster spinning generator.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume you are trying to pretend that's some kind of problem?
7.5e6 kg divided by a population of 3e8 is 25 grams per capita.
Rare earths are plentiful. Not a problem.
The UK? Where's that? (Score:5, Interesting)
The UK, which left the EU in January, has the largest amount of offshore wind capacity in Europe, with 45% of all installations.
There is a reasonable chance that after the elections for the Scottish parliament next May that there will be a push for a referendum for Scottish independence. If the referendum does take place then it is likely that those living in Scotland (I will be one of them by then) will vote for independence.
The majority of oil and gas reserves, and wind and hydroelectric power in the UK is based in Scotland and what will be Scottish waters if independence takes place. This being so, the rUK will have to negotiate with Scotland for access to these.
On another front, there is already a .scot TLD, what happens to the .uk TLD if the UK does break up?
Re:The UK? Where's that? (Score:4, Funny)
Boris can get David Frost to use his legendary negotiating skills to buy us a letter f and a letter d to put either side of the uk bit. They are such a bunch of tossers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK, which left the EU in January, has the largest amount of offshore wind capacity in Europe, with 45% of all installations.
There is a reasonable chance that after the elections for the Scottish parliament next May that there will be a push for a referendum for Scottish independence.
There is zero chance of that because the SNP are not running for independence - they're running on a platform of finding bigger handouts from the EU than they get from English taxpayers.
The last thing Scotland wants is independence - it would sink like a stone.
Re:The UK? Where's that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except they won't get EU handouts when the UK is not in the EU, not without independence anyway.
But all this is moot anyway. Scotland would get independence only if it means joining the EU, and Spain would veto that due to its own Catalonia issue as would a few other countries, and without EU membership Scotland would have not reason to chose independence.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they won't get EU handouts when the UK is not in the EU, not without independence anyway.
But all this is moot anyway. Scotland would get independence only if it means joining the EU, and Spain would veto that due to its own Catalonia issue as would a few other countries, and without EU membership Scotland would have not reason to chose independence.
I don't know if Spain will do that if the option is there to kick off about Gibraltar. I suspect the SNP have already made some sort of deal there. Dunno.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever is happening with Gibraltar is effectively done and doesn't have anything to do with Scotland. Spain would veto to send a message that it doesn't support territories seeking independence and being supported by the rest of the EU. If Spain supported Scotland it'll kick the Catalonia problems up a notch.
Re: (Score:2)
You can not longer veto EU majority decisions. That was abolished long ago.
and without EU membership Scotland would have not reason to chose independence.
Why? Being a member of the UK does not benefit them either.
Re: (Score:3)
You can not longer veto EU majority decisions. That was abolished long ago.
As usual completely false. The EU has only *proposed* to abandon veto rights for internal market matters. Specifically it wants to abolish them for finance and taxation. And that if it passes wouldn't even come into force until 2025. And even after that a treaty of ascension must be ratified by all existing member states. Seriously man for someone from Germany you pay little attention, Hungary and Poland both vetoed the budget proposal *yesterday*. Turn on the TV.
Why? Being a member of the UK does not benefit them either.
Errr You think having a completely and open
Re: (Score:1)
Turn on the TV.
I have no TV.
Errr You think having a completely and open free relationship with the only "country" with whom you share a land border does not benefit you? Are you high?
Yes, why would it benefit them? Seriously? They gain nothing from being in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that would be weird :P
A there was no "joining" discussion. I think they rejected a budget plan?
Re: (Score:2)
Spain won't veto it. In fact they would welcome Scotland in because
a) Soctland used a legal, democratic process to leave where as Catalonia is not following Spanish law, and they can simply deny Catalonia the opportunity to do so, and
b) it makes it more likely that Gibraltar will leave and then re-join the EU, which is good for Spain.
At most Spain will throw out some token objection to get a concession or two from other EU countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. I'm still apprehensive. I think Spain doesn't want to add fuel to the Catalonia fire. It would be quite easy to say: "See if you leave us you're on your own" to improve support for Catalonia staying in Spain.
This isn't a legality issue I'm talking about it's a public support issue. Catalonian independence has quite a bit of public support, just like Brexit did. Prior to Brexit the idea of leaving the EU was actually quite popular in several countries, and now even the right wing psychos are like ...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure Catalonia really cares about EU membership. I mean they want it but if it's a choice between independence of the EU they will take independence. And realistically it will be hard to refuse at least EEA membership because of the land border with Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
Catalonia has no capability of empathy. It's down to the people and independence sounds great for people right until you tell them they lose their ability to travel, their jobs, and that everything suddenly costs them more. As I said the public sentiment about leaving the EU has plummeted when they saw what happened in the UK and my guess is it will plummet even further before the end of the year.
You're right about EAA membership though. Catalonia's desires to leave has no fundamental conflict with the EU's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they break away, they can apply as they are an independent country.
Precisely. Further empowering Catalonian separatists "Hey everyone, see we can be our own country and still enjoy all benefits of being in the EU"
Re: (Score:2)
Polling shows a strong majority in favour of independence now. The UK government is very unpopular in Scotland.
The SNP plans to run on a platform of holding an independence referendum next year. The elections are in May. Current polling suggests that they will win a landslide, again. With that mandate it will be extremely difficult for the UK government to resist another referendum, and there are legal avenues to forcing it to allow one too.
The current plan from the UK side is to force Scotland to negotiate
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Polling shows a strong majority in favour of independence now. The UK government is very unpopular in Scotland.
The SNP plans to run on a platform of holding an independence referendum next year. The elections are in May. Current polling suggests that they will win a landslide, again. With that mandate it will be extremely difficult for the UK government to resist another referendum, and there are legal avenues to forcing it to allow one too.
The current plan from the UK side is to force Scotland to negotiate an exit deal before holding the referendum. The opposite of brexit basically, what the UK should have done. The hope is that the deal will be poor dissuade Scots from leaving. Of course the SNP has been preparing a solid legal basis for ensuring it gets a good deal on things like currency, share of UK debt, assets and so forth. This plan also runs the risk of creating more support for independence when it appears that the UK government is acting in bad faith and tacitly admitting that it completely botched brexit.
On top of that the UK is likely to be in recession at that point, or maybe just out but suffering badly after leaving the EU. It's going to be a very hard one for the UK government to win.
You didn't read what I, or the SNP, said. Scotland is poised not for independence but for continued dependence on the EU for handouts. They don't want independence.
The SNP is an overtly racist party who's entire game is to complain about the English despite the fact that the English are not bothering them in any way.
Scotland loved the Empire when it was top dog - holding twice the per capita rate of slaves as England - but now it wants to play the underdog card when things aren't so good. It's utterly pathe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a lot of resentment of the UK government and the English in Scotland. They had oil, it was sold off and they saw relatively little benefit from it. They could have started a sovereign wealth fund.
Now they have wind and if they can get free of the UK it can be all theirs.
As for dependence on the EU, the rUK is about to discover that it too is in fact dependent on the EU, or more specifically the Single Market.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a lot of resentment of the UK government and the English in Scotland. They had oil, it was sold off and they saw relatively little benefit from it.
I think they did see quite a lot of benefit. The problem of course is that the SNP see anything that benefits Scotland as all-Scots and anything that benefits the UK as being something that should be shared. The hypocrisy is neck-deep. It's this sort of crap that having a separate parliament causes.
They could have started a sovereign wealth fund.
Perhaps they could have. Would they have? Who knows?
Now they have wind and if they can get free of the UK it can be all theirs.
See above.
As for dependence on the EU, the rUK is about to discover that it too is in fact dependent on the EU, or more specifically the Single Market.
We shall see. The EU is just the same bad design on a different level. Lots of fragmented bits instead of a unified whole, so it ends up being run for
Re: (Score:1)
One key difference between the UK and the EU is that in the EU Scotland would have a seat at the top table and a veto.
At the moment they are largely ignored by the UK government, or used as a testbed for unpopular policies like the Poll Tax.
Re: (Score:2)
One key difference between the UK and the EU is that in the EU Scotland would have a seat at the top table and a veto.
That's pure fantasy.
At the moment they are largely ignored by the UK government
Again, this the delusion of calling yourself a nation when you are half the size of the capital city. Scotland has an amount of clout based on how many people live there.
or used as a testbed for unpopular policies like the Poll Tax.
How long ago was that now?
Meanwhile, the EU has within the last 10 years enacted decisions that have crippled Spain and Italy with levels of youth unemployment that Scotland has not seen in living memory. If they can do that to Italy, then the Scots are insane if they think they'll "have a seat at the top table and a vet
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a fantasy? That's how the EU works. The Council is made up of the heads of state from each member nation and each member nation has a veto. Those are facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The Council is made up of the heads of state from each member nation and each member nation has a veto.
So Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England all had 1 representative and 1 veto each? Or was it a single representative and veto for the entirety of the UK?
The latter. Despite the delusions of Welsh, Scottish, and some proportion of the Northern Irish, the UK is a single country and was represented as such
Regardless, that does not seem very fair. Should not more populous nations have more representatives and veto power?
That's a tricky question because it starts from a position that I think is erroneous. There should not be individual nations in Europe, so there should be no "representatives" other than the MEPs, and certainly no vetos.
Re: (Score:2)
has to do what they're told and be happy with it or the nice Germans will come and turn the power off to their hospitals and take the pensions away from the over 70s.
What bullshit is that? You have mental problems or what?
There is not even an European pension system. How the funk would anyone be able to remove anyones pension for what $ReASON?
Seriously, are you an complete idiot?
Re: (Score:1)
has to do what they're told and be happy with it or the nice Germans will come and turn the power off to their hospitals and take the pensions away from the over 70s.
What bullshit is that? You have mental problems or what?
There is not even an European pension system. How the funk would anyone be able to remove anyones pension for what $ReASON?
Seriously, are you an complete idiot?
Go talk to some Greeks; come back when you have a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
The Germans didn't get rid of the Greek pensions. The Greeks did that to themselves by borrowing to pay for it and lying about their income. The lenders eventually learned the truth and stopped lending, at that point it was really bad news for the Greeks. However it was *ALL* their own fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The Germans didn't get rid of the Greek pensions. The Greeks did that to themselves by borrowing to pay for it and lying about their income. The lenders eventually learned the truth and stopped lending, at that point it was really bad news for the Greeks. However it was *ALL* their own fault.
Bullshit. Germany and France broke the borrowing limits set by the EU, so the smaller countries followed suit. When the shit hit the fan the European Project showed what it was made of by repatriating German debt and bringing the austerity hammer down on the little guys who had done nothing more awful than apply the same standard to themselves as the big boys had.
EVERYONE knew the Greek income was mis-stated. Germany didn't care because they wanted a weak economy in the Eurozone to hold down the value of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Lots of fragmented bits instead of a unified whole, so it ends up being run for the big boys in Frankfurt and everyone else has to do what they're told and be happy with it or the nice Germans will come and turn the power off to their hospitals and take the pensions away from the over 70s." lovely conspiracy theory
What theory? It happened, it happened in full light of the world media and it was reported on extensively. Some fucking theory.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.thenationalherald.... [thenationalherald.com]
https://www.counterpunch.org/2... [counterpunch.org]
There were fucking riots in the street.
"Conspiracy theory"? Grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
While Scotland does have the biggest wind resource (due to high wind speeds at that latitude), the second highest wind resource in Europe is offshore Northern England., and while the average wind speeds are lower, there is actually more suitable locations to build due to the depth of water in this region along with large industrial ports all along the east coast with large populations helps to lower the installation cost.
I think if Scotland did go independent we would see a massive development in offshore w
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland has an interconnector to Northern Ireland and there is one from Ireland to Wales or England there are several on the English south coast to France and the Netherlands The direction changes quite often. You might see 3000MW imported to the UK from France at the same time the UK might be exporting to Ireland. Interconnectors will increase in importance as Wind Energy increases, currently Ireland can support up to 70% Wind generation on the grid
In the middle of the night grid demand might be 3000 M
Re:The UK? Where's that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably the "United Kingdom" will continue, just without Scotland. And probably without Northern Ireland soon too, I can't see them staying much longer now they are separated from the mainland by a customs border and significant differences in laws.
Even the Welsh are talking about independence again. Could see a domino effect once Scotland goes. At best it will be England and Wales left, with little love lost between them and a struggling economy. The Welsh were one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU support funding and the government still hasn't even announced what the replacement will be exactly. You can bet it won't be as good as what they have lost.
Re: (Score:2)
The Welsh were one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU support funding
And that did not stop them voting in a huge majourity for BReXIT.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. A lot of people fell for the lies and now reality is slapping them in the face like a wet fish.
Re: (Score:2)
If Northern Ireland go then it's not the United Kingdom any more - period. It would revert to the pre 1801 status of being being Great Britain.
However Great Britain (political as opposed to the name of the largest island) is broken up by Scotland leaving the UK, then you can't have a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland either because Great Britain will cease to exist.
I suggest you get your passport out and read what is written on the cover LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
My passport still says "European Union", sigh.
Anyway there is no requirement for country names to be true, e.g. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
So I imagine they will cling to "United Kingdom" out of nostalgia and because "England and Wales" or "Lesser Britain" don't sound so good.
Re: (Score:2)
"Britania minor"
? :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome the return of the Ten Kingdoms, and the variety it introduces to wars of succession!
Heck, we can precede it with a few wars of secession!
Independence for Gwynedd and Anglia!
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully Utred son of Utred will be available to save us from the Danes... Actually we would have been a lot better off if Alfred had been defeated I think.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if you get Ethelred the Unready?
Absolute best name in history, but . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... So is Britain expected to just let Scotland 'leave' w/o so much as a peep or would there be a war?
I know there are a few states in the U.S that would love to try that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why Scotland generates nearly all it's electrical power from renewable or nuclear. There is one natural gas plant left and some diesel stuff on some of the islands.
Scotland has a potential for around 500 GWh of pumped storage so can cope with variable renewable and around 20% of electricity generation was hydro for decades.
"Pounds"? (Score:1)
Ashamed to be Dutch (Score:3)
The wind pattern will stay static over time (Score:1)
Having a wind farm across the road from us and over a decade of local weather station information showing declining wind speeds as the local climate slowly warms, one wonders if anyone thought as to how the pattern and intensity of wind might change as the climate continues to change? Seems they are making a huge bet (or several) that while other weather patterns may change, the part that their power generation depends on will remain static. On well, where I live, after building thousands of the things all
Re: (Score:2)
Locally, I can see wind conditions changing for the worse for windmills due to global warming. However, pumping more heat into the atmosphere is likely to make the atmosphere more active and hence more localities will see increased winds.
Not enough (Score:3)
The EU has the ambition of being net CO2 neutral by 2050. 250% more offshore wind is not even close to a teeny tiny little bit enough. We need significantly more wind, just about all geothermal energy we can extract and a vast number of new nuclear reactors (the current modus operandi is closing nuclear reactors)... and even then we're never ever going to make that goal because we started 50 years too late.
Re: (Score:1)
Right now Ireland produces 19% of its power from wind, and almost all of that is onshore. Let's just say that they do 250% of that with offshore (because 2.5 times nothing isn't helpful); that's 75% of their power. That's probably as much of that one renewable source as they can currently absorb (peaks will go far above 100%, they need to levelize this with connections to other areas and other sources.) Same thing goes for Germany; if they have 250% of the current 25% produced by wind (this doesn't breakdow
Re: (Score:2)
19% of its power? I highly doubt that. 19% of its electricity perhaps.
And even if it were 19%, Ireland does not (and will not) have sufficient storage solutions to get through a cold winter night when the wind does not blow. It all seems great now, with 19% electricity from wind, but it only works thanks to backup from other sources that take care of the daily and seasonal fluctuations. And that's with the biggest seasonal consumers not on electricity yet, which even further distorts the picture.
Nevertheles
Re: (Score:1)
19% of its average power, I should have said. It hits over 70% at times, as someone else already posted. One of the speakers at our IEEE Power Engineering Society conference (when I was the chapter chairman) in Schenectady was a GE research center engineer and was tasked with stability issues for Ireland when inverters get to be more than 70% of the instantaneous power. [The pedantic "power vs electricity" is probably not what you were going for - you probably intended to skewer me on power in megawatts or
Re: (Score:2)
You can be lead on this and that, but argumentum ab auctoritate does not seem to solve that you vastly underestimate the sacle of the problem. Or I'm really bad at maths, which would not surprise me either:p
Anyway. Electricity is not the problem; electricity is a mere fraction of current energy consumption. Wind only accounted for about 6% of Irelands' total 2019 energy consumption (9.497 TWh / 583 petajoule = 6%). Compared to many other countries, that's extremely good, but in reality it is a teeny tiny fr
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say trust me, I said take a look at the EIA (not useful for Europe but Iowa is a lot like Ireland for wind.) Also, your math above: Ireland's current wind is 6%. Future offshore wind is 6%. Total is 12%. To reach 100% needs to be ... 16 times bigger, or 192%? But checking for math here within an order of magnitude will be like checking spelling... cheap and pointless.
Jesus man... Ireland is about 6 million people. How much power do you believe they need? NY State with 19 million people maxes at 34
Re: (Score:2)
How much power do you believe they need?
In other words, I do think you math is off by an order of magnitude.
The total energy consumed in Ireland is not based on my math, it is based on the available data, which cannot possibly be off by an order of magnitude. Ireland consumed 583 petajoule in 2016 with peaks quite a bit higher (but I cannot find data on the peaks). I don't see where it must come from nor do the fragmented examples you provide answer that; the current plans, which mostly stretch until 2050, do not come even close to 100% in 2050, even when including super optimistic energy saving scenario's (e.g.
Re: (Score:1)
I provided my sources, what's yours?
https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... [cia.gov]
Here's a total US energy, all sources and uses, in quads. Even here renewables are already 11.5% of the total. America has not significantly deployed off-shore wind yet.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenerg... [eia.gov]
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/co... [llnl.gov]
The fun part is that you're attempting to cover all of this included the rejected energy (67.5 quads in the US), but that's a really different number when you use either electric vehicles or geothermal heat l
Re: (Score:1)
What I'm getting at there is that an ICE vehicle that gets 28mpg uses 4142 btu per mile. An electric car like my Bolt uses 1100 btu per mile (333w per mile... online sources say better, but I've found that's realistic with a heater and studded snow tires). There's 67 quads of rejected energy in the US 2019 Sankey. 22.3 of that is transportation. When we electrify transportation fully, a large percentage of total US energy baseload goes away forever, because of the difference in max thermodynamic efficiency
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland has a lot of Wind Turbines in fact Wind gets curtailed a lot since the maximum safe wind generation is around 70% of demand, At this time of year there is usually more available than can be used what's needed more than new Wind turbines is more interconnectors. tonight there is likely around 4000MW of wind energy available but that's more than is needed for the whole Island. In the Summer Wind might drop as low as 300MW at times. With more interconnectors the excess can be supplying the UK and Euro
250% increase in windmill cancer! (Score:2)
Way to kill off your citizens! /s
Who is monitoring nearby biomes? (Score:2)
Is anyone going to be watching the nearby biomes, above and below the surface, to see what is affected and by how much?