3 ms·
>The US is far behind, and though there are a few plans on the US Atlantic coast the UK is smaller than the state of Michigan, so it naturally follows they wou
by nimbius 6y ago
>The US is far behind, and though there are a few plans on the US Atlantic coast
the UK is smaller than the state of Michigan, so it naturally follows they would seek to expand their wind turbines to the sea. Its doubtful that a nation the size of the US would ever commit turbines to sea when theyre already generating 105 gigawatts across the nations expansive stretch. conversely, the UK's most ambitious goal is a paltry 40 gigawatts.
neither country is "ahead" or "behind" the other. The opportunities, requirements, costs, and other variables are simply different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...
- epistasis 6y agoWe are behind on the industrial development for offshore wind farms. We will likely buy the tech from Europe, as well the rest of the world. I don’t understand how the size of the nations means that UK would expand to sea but we wouldn’t. Can you step through your reasoning for me? For example, the wind corridor in the center of the US doesn’t provide anything for North Carolina. How does the size of the US and UK relate to this?
- jweir 6y agoOn shore wind is cheaper and more durable. So use it first. North Carolina is part of PJM and would benefit from wind throughout the region. Now the transmission costs might be high enough that off shore could make sense in NC if on shore is not an option. So then you need to look at increasing transmission or building something local.