4 ms·

I just can't get into wind energy personally. For a green energy source, it seems worse than geo, solar, and nuclear in almost every way. They are: - intermitt

I just can't get into wind energy personally. For a green energy source, it seems worse than geo, solar, and nuclear in almost every way. They are: - intermittent - expensive (more than solar) - look bad (worst of all energy sources) - no plausible route for it getting a significant fraction of the energy mix (nuclear or solar+batteries do) I mean having some wind seems cool for some situations, but I just can't get excited about it.

Symbiote 5y ago
The United Kingdom generated 25% of power last year from wind. It has a good location for wind, which many countries couldn't match, but it clearly an effective source in this case.
_ph_ 5y ago
It very much depends on which location you are talking about. Different locations favor different forms of energy creation. Solar very much depends on the climate and laltitude. Even across Germany there are significant local differences. Yes, wind, like solar, is intermittent. But you can combine it with batteries like you could do with solar. The great thing is, wind follows a different weather pattern than solar. It is available at night or when there is cloudy weather. Usually it is strongest at times, when solar doesn't deliver much. A fully renewable grid requires a combination of solar and wind. In Germany, on-shore wind is cheaper than solar and delivering a larger fraction of the total energy consumed than solar, but as said, there is a clear separation by region, what is the prominent form of energy. And I personally think that most of them do look good. I am fond of technology and wind turbines are especially elegant and spectacular looking. I can see that too many of them can be seen negatively. Solar cells can be hidden better.
- tralarpa 5y ago
  > wind follows a different weather pattern than solar Some data to explore: https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGeneratio... Unfortunately, some interesting countries (e.g. Sweden, Germany,...) are missing. I am wondering how electricitymap.org gets their data from there for those countries? But there are also other sources, e.g.: https://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_einspeiseleistung_wind_und_solar_energie https://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_eins...
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    I am using electricitymap for the daily distribution in Germany and energy-charts.info for longer term statistics. While they are not perfectly aligned, it is nice to see how wind often is strong when there is no sun and vice versa, both in the daily and the yearly run. Unfortunately I haven't seen many statistics how large an European grid would have to be to achieve a perfect wind distribution as weather systems pass over europe. But just connecting France and Germany for wind power would reduce the weather influence a lot (requires France to build more wind power first, of course).
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Solar has 10x lower output in UK during winter, when energy is needed most. It's almost completely unfeasable here.
unwind 5y ago
These are offshore turbines, so looks would hopefully be less of a problem (and, I guess, so would noise which is often mentioned as a problem too) at least.
pydry 5y ago
If you think wind energy is too expensive you must hate nuclear. It's like 4-7x the cost.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  Which is why French energy is the cheapest and least-carbon-intensive in Western Europe? Nuclear is cheap when not operated in a hostile regulatory environment and built at scale, even while setting aside tens of billions for decommissioning and waste management.
  - _huayra_ 5y ago
    Yeah it's too bad the world didn't go nuclear as France did. iirc they have a standardized way of making power plants off site and then assembling on-site, vs. the bespoke custom way they build them in the US (part of the bonkers cost overruns).
  - pydry 5y ago
    It's cheap coz they built their nuclear plants ~50 years ago and front loaded the capital expenditure. They're sort of in a sweet spot right now financially but once their plants start aging out - which is soon - the costs will jump a lot if they try to extend their life or build brand new plants. The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never" This makes no sence, and if wealthy countries of this world actually got their head out of their collective asses and built a system like the french one, we would avoid climate change almost entirely - france emits 3 or 4 times less per persom than the US does
  - Tade0 5y ago
    The plant in Belarus was arguably made in a very, ahem, friendly regulatory environment(finished in less than 6 years!) and it still was $11bln for a 2GW unit. But the most important thing is the opportunity cost - a typical nuclear power plant takes 7 years to complete. For this reason in terms of GWh delivered in China, wind overtook nuclear in 2012 or so and the gap has been widening ever since.
derriz 5y ago
Geo - like hydro-power - is only suitable in very particular geographies and so has relatively tiny scope for decarbonizing electricity generation. Solar is on average cheaper but the cheapest wind is cheaper than the cheapest solar[1]. Nuclear just isn't in the ballpark in terms of cost or utility or project risk. Intermittency is a problem for all generation types - they just have different modes. The average nuclear reactor in the US, for example, spends about 10% of it's time off-line, coal generation is even worse - about 15% unavailable with 10% unscheduled. So you still need backup idling capacity for thermal generation. Particularly nuclear requires a great deal of complimentary dispatchable sources given you need to be able to match demand which can have a daily peak 2 or 3 times higher than trough and nuclear reactors can take a day or more to vary their output. No comment on the looks - to me they aren't ugly. There is a plausible route for wind - at least to get to 70% or so supply. There are a few countries in Europe already over the 35% mark for wind and grid engineers seem confident that much more can added with current tech. Wind complements solar as their output is generally not correlated - combining both reduces the overall output variance. Wind has higher capacity factor than solar[2]. In more northern latitudes solar capacity factor can be as low as 10%. While in some places on-shore wind capacity factors can be higher than 40%. 1GW of installed capacity wind will, on average, provide 40% more electricity than 1GW of solar based on the US Energy Information Agency figures. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
pjc50 5y ago
Wind vs solar cost is pretty much equal. It's also at least as capable as solar for giving you a significant energy mix. https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper... It scales "vertically" (bigger turbines!) while solar scales horizontally (more roofs).

Symbiote 5y ago

The United Kingdom generated 25% of power last year from wind. It has a good location for wind, which many countries couldn't match, but it clearly an effective source in this case.

_ph_ 5y ago

It very much depends on which location you are talking about. Different locations favor different forms of energy creation. Solar very much depends on the climate and laltitude. Even across Germany there are significant local differences. Yes, wind, like solar, is intermittent. But you can combine it with batteries like you could do with solar. The great thing is, wind follows a different weather pattern than solar. It is available at night or when there is cloudy weather. Usually it is strongest at times, when solar doesn't deliver much. A fully renewable grid requires a combination of solar and wind. In Germany, on-shore wind is cheaper than solar and delivering a larger fraction of the total energy consumed than solar, but as said, there is a clear separation by region, what is the prominent form of energy. And I personally think that most of them do look good. I am fond of technology and wind turbines are especially elegant and spectacular looking. I can see that too many of them can be seen negatively. Solar cells can be hidden better.

tralarpa 5y ago
> wind follows a different weather pattern than solar Some data to explore: https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGeneratio... Unfortunately, some interesting countries (e.g. Sweden, Germany,...) are missing. I am wondering how electricitymap.org gets their data from there for those countries? But there are also other sources, e.g.: https://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_einspeiseleistung_wind_und_solar_energie https://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_eins...
- _ph_ 5y ago
  I am using electricitymap for the daily distribution in Germany and energy-charts.info for longer term statistics. While they are not perfectly aligned, it is nice to see how wind often is strong when there is no sun and vice versa, both in the daily and the yearly run. Unfortunately I haven't seen many statistics how large an European grid would have to be to achieve a perfect wind distribution as weather systems pass over europe. But just connecting France and Germany for wind power would reduce the weather influence a lot (requires France to build more wind power first, of course).
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Solar has 10x lower output in UK during winter, when energy is needed most. It's almost completely unfeasable here.

unwind 5y ago

These are offshore turbines, so looks would hopefully be less of a problem (and, I guess, so would noise which is often mentioned as a problem too) at least.

pydry 5y ago

If you think wind energy is too expensive you must hate nuclear. It's like 4-7x the cost.

MagnumOpus 5y ago
Which is why French energy is the cheapest and least-carbon-intensive in Western Europe? Nuclear is cheap when not operated in a hostile regulatory environment and built at scale, even while setting aside tens of billions for decommissioning and waste management.
- _huayra_ 5y ago
  Yeah it's too bad the world didn't go nuclear as France did. iirc they have a standardized way of making power plants off site and then assembling on-site, vs. the bespoke custom way they build them in the US (part of the bonkers cost overruns).
- pydry 5y ago
  It's cheap coz they built their nuclear plants ~50 years ago and front loaded the capital expenditure. They're sort of in a sweet spot right now financially but once their plants start aging out - which is soon - the costs will jump a lot if they try to extend their life or build brand new plants. The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never" This makes no sence, and if wealthy countries of this world actually got their head out of their collective asses and built a system like the french one, we would avoid climate change almost entirely - france emits 3 or 4 times less per persom than the US does
- Tade0 5y ago
  The plant in Belarus was arguably made in a very, ahem, friendly regulatory environment(finished in less than 6 years!) and it still was $11bln for a 2GW unit. But the most important thing is the opportunity cost - a typical nuclear power plant takes 7 years to complete. For this reason in terms of GWh delivered in China, wind overtook nuclear in 2012 or so and the gap has been widening ever since.

derriz 5y ago

Geo - like hydro-power - is only suitable in very particular geographies and so has relatively tiny scope for decarbonizing electricity generation. Solar is on average cheaper but the cheapest wind is cheaper than the cheapest solar[1]. Nuclear just isn't in the ballpark in terms of cost or utility or project risk. Intermittency is a problem for all generation types - they just have different modes. The average nuclear reactor in the US, for example, spends about 10% of it's time off-line, coal generation is even worse - about 15% unavailable with 10% unscheduled. So you still need backup idling capacity for thermal generation. Particularly nuclear requires a great deal of complimentary dispatchable sources given you need to be able to match demand which can have a daily peak 2 or 3 times higher than trough and nuclear reactors can take a day or more to vary their output. No comment on the looks - to me they aren't ugly. There is a plausible route for wind - at least to get to 70% or so supply. There are a few countries in Europe already over the 35% mark for wind and grid engineers seem confident that much more can added with current tech. Wind complements solar as their output is generally not correlated - combining both reduces the overall output variance. Wind has higher capacity factor than solar[2]. In more northern latitudes solar capacity factor can be as low as 10%. While in some places on-shore wind capacity factors can be higher than 40%. 1GW of installed capacity wind will, on average, provide 40% more electricity than 1GW of solar based on the US Energy Information Agency figures. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

pjc50 5y ago

Wind vs solar cost is pretty much equal. It's also at least as capable as solar for giving you a significant energy mix. https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper... It scales "vertically" (bigger turbines!) while solar scales horizontally (more roofs).