Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Utility Plans Massive Wind Farm Island In North Sea (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Britain's homes could be lit and powered by wind farms surrounding an artificial island deep out in the North Sea, under advanced plans by a Dutch energy network. The radical proposal envisages an island being built to act as a hub for vast offshore wind farms that would eclipse today's facilities in scale. Dogger Bank, 125km (78 miles) off the East Yorkshire coast, has been identified as a potentially windy and shallow site. The power hub would send electricity over a long-distance cable to the UK and Netherlands, and possibly later to Belgium, Germany, and Denmark. TenneT, the project's backer and Dutch equivalent of the UK's National Grid, recently shared early findings of a study that said its plan could be billions of euros cheaper than conventional wind farms and international power cables. The sci-fi-sounding proposal is sold as an innovative answer to industry's challenge of continuing to make offshore wind cheaper, as turbines are pushed ever further off the coast to more expensive sites as the best spots closer to land fill up.
It won't be long before wind and solar have reached the point where they won't need any subsidies at all to compete with fossil fuels...which no doubt will still enjoy the billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies they get right now.
It's unfortunate that North America squandered its opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing the means to provide renewable energy, thanks to lobbying by fossil fuel corporations and low-information taxpayers who have never figured out how little they spend subsidizing renewables, and how much they spend subsidizing oil, gas, and coal.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In the grandparent post I saw links to a number of very interesting articles on how nuclear power is the only solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The parent post is just ad hominem. Interesting isn't it?
You can claim that wind and solar power is the solution to our greenhouse gas problem but without some kind of data that claim is rather empty, no? Sure, we do in fact see plenty of wind and solar power capacity being developed. In fact I see windmill parts being transported down the interstate daily where I live. I will not dispute the increasing pace of wind and solar energy deployment. What I dispute is the economics of it all. Not just in dollars and cents but in the greenhouse gas emitted.
Nuclear already has a lower greenhouse gas emission rate per energy produce than solar and is on par with wind and hydro. I know the argument, when solar power hits its stride then the greenhouse gas emissions will drop. That's fine, I'll go with that. What happens though when nuclear power hits its stride? It's lower than solar now, what happens when we see cement and steel for the next nuclear reactor getting produced from nuclear power?
Another argument is how energy storage will make wind and solar reliable enough to keep the lights on 24/7 instead of when the sun shines and wind blows. I ask this, what do you think that same electric storage technology could do if paired with an already inherently reliable energy source like nuclear power? I hear the argument on how a failure of a large nuclear power plant could render large areas without power. Sure, that could happen. That would happen now, that is, since we have a "dumb" grid and no storage. What happens if we pair nuclear power with a "smart" grid and battery storage? Or with, what seems to be everyone's favorite energy storage, pumped hydroelectric? Hydroelectric dams are already used now for load following, seasonal scale storage, and such for nuclear power. Just ask the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've seen the facility.
The argument against nuclear seems to me rides on the idea that it is somehow separated from technologies like grid scale battery storage and "smart" grids. Nuclear power can have those things too. Solar and wind as energy sources are impossible without storage and enough "smarts" to manage it all, nuclear does not need them. What happens though if these storage and "smart" technologies are mated with nuclear power then we have something far safer, cheaper, and "greener" than anything solar and wind could do.
That's fine though. Keep claiming that wind and solar will win in the end. I see a different future. A future powered by nuclear reactors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Look, the nuclear industry* has promised us a pony that turned out to glow in the dark and have two heads so many times, that the first time I will support a thorium-based reactor is if private industry develops and runs a prototype for 5 years in the CEO's backyard, not a moment sooner.
Meanwhile, in the real world, nuclear power relies heavily on subsidies, has a massive waste problem and is tied in with the political hairy problem of Proliferation.
The money wasted on new powerplants might as well be spent researching power storage solutions.
*NOTE: I said industry. I am not against nuclear power per se, but the current industry is a malicious beast that massively overpromises and underdelivers, and it has to die and reconstructed before I will take nuclear power seriously as an alternative.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
"Spoil the pristine waters or some BS?" it will certainly spoil it all if there is a catastrophic disaster with a nuclear plant, radio active waters and all fishing stocks contaminated forever more would be an issue.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Aside from the expense of trying to build such a complex device and supply/maintain it on an island, the extreme weather is probably more than anyone can certify a nuclear plant for anyway.
Why bother spending more on a nuclear plant and running and decommissioning costs when you can just build a cheaper, cleaner wind farm? The wind farm won't need subsidies either, and the energy will be cheaper. Much cheaper.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you have a citation for your subsidy figures? I'd like to see if they include externalised costs, wars etc. Not to mention that we are looking at electricity, not gasoline.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC