kravietz 🦇 on Nostr: npub17qmud…4uz8c The last part is based on series of misconceptions: You can get a ...
npub17qmud32pgkk4v335kc0mct377pwtjw2rw7p9gphjy280xp2xlr0q24uz8c (npub17qm…uz8c)
The last part is based on series of misconceptions:
You can get a single wind tower in months, correct. But to replace a single conventional 1 GW power plant you need hundreds or thousands of wind towers. You physically can’t get hundreds of wind towers produced and erected in months, it takes years.
Each wind tower occupies around 0.6 km2 of land. And that’s precisely why on-shore wind projects dramatically slowed down in recent years - people started to see the planning permissions to turn whole mountains or forests into industrial landscape, and started to block them.
Off-shore wind farms are easier to get planning permission but they are as expensive as nuclear power plants, they still occupy ~0.6 km2 per tower on the sea shelf and construction takes just as much as a nuclear power plant.
With capacity factors between 13% (PV) and 30% (off-shore wind) renewables are physically unable to provide 24/7. You need either battery storage, smart grid or redundant dispatchable power plant.
The first two are non-existent today at the scale (!) required to power whole countries, and there are very good physical limitations to that (space, supply chain, mining, manufacturing)
This is precisely why Germany, with 60 GW consumption has 120 GW in renewables (!) plus extra 60 GW in coal and gas. There’s simply no other way of having 24/7 lights on.
And this is also why the lowest CO2 emissions belong to countries such as Sweden, Canada or France who run on renewables with low-carbon nuclear base.
npub195zpfpv8ct96zrnz57z04sj8x6tlgf4yuqla6c354z5vhldnu7mqq8x938 (npub195z…x938)
The last part is based on series of misconceptions:
You can get a single wind tower in months, correct. But to replace a single conventional 1 GW power plant you need hundreds or thousands of wind towers. You physically can’t get hundreds of wind towers produced and erected in months, it takes years.
Each wind tower occupies around 0.6 km2 of land. And that’s precisely why on-shore wind projects dramatically slowed down in recent years - people started to see the planning permissions to turn whole mountains or forests into industrial landscape, and started to block them.
Off-shore wind farms are easier to get planning permission but they are as expensive as nuclear power plants, they still occupy ~0.6 km2 per tower on the sea shelf and construction takes just as much as a nuclear power plant.
With capacity factors between 13% (PV) and 30% (off-shore wind) renewables are physically unable to provide 24/7. You need either battery storage, smart grid or redundant dispatchable power plant.
The first two are non-existent today at the scale (!) required to power whole countries, and there are very good physical limitations to that (space, supply chain, mining, manufacturing)
This is precisely why Germany, with 60 GW consumption has 120 GW in renewables (!) plus extra 60 GW in coal and gas. There’s simply no other way of having 24/7 lights on.
And this is also why the lowest CO2 emissions belong to countries such as Sweden, Canada or France who run on renewables with low-carbon nuclear base.
npub195zpfpv8ct96zrnz57z04sj8x6tlgf4yuqla6c354z5vhldnu7mqq8x938 (npub195z…x938)