4 ms·

For 250 turbines, based on your own links we need 444 sq km. That's like half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. So based on offshor

by N1H1L 5y ago

For 250 turbines, based on your own links we need 444 sq km. That's like half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. So based on offshore capacity factors, an area of NYC will generate 500160.5 = 4000MW continuous power. NY state consumes approximately 200 TWh of power annually. Thus, this setup itself will contribute to 1/6th of the whole state's power consumption.

dmitriid 5y ago
> half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. I exaggerated of course [1]. But you probably don't realize how huge half of New York city, or 444 sq. km is. And the area is likely to larger because you will need additional infrastructure to handle all this and maintain the generators. [1] There are 43 countries smaller than that: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than+440+sq+km https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than...
- N1H1L 5y ago
  True. However NYC also has a huge population and enormous energy footprint. The population of all those countries combined is around 5 million, less than a third of NYC. I specifically chose NYC, as it's one of the most densely populated areas, so its energy requirements are that much higher.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    This doesn't have anything to do with my original point. 400 square kilometers is a huge area. But sure. You "only" need one of those to match the output of a nuclear power plant. You "only" need to fully clear that area of all obstacles (including trees, for example), and provide that area with roads, access points, battery storage, power transformers... Edit: take this report on area comparisons between nuclear, solar, and wind with a grain of salt. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar... But even if they are 10x off, that's still enormous land requirements.
    - N1H1L 5y ago
      You don't need to clear trees and build roads for offshore wind. Nobody is denying that nuclear is concentrated. However, this concentration also misses one step - when calculating areal requirements you should also calculate land needed for waste disposal.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > You don't need to clear trees and build roads for offshore wind. As if that makes problem go away. Type Isle of Wight into Google Maps. Its area is 384 square kilometers. Then zoom out. And then zoom out again. You can still see it at a zoom level that encompasses all of Europe. That's the area you need to cover in these megaturbines. And no, you can't just plop them down anywhere: - they have to be sufficiently close to the shore (you can't expect power cables to be infinitely long, you need easy access for maintenance etc.) - the seabed has to allow for construction: even if you don't embed it into the seabed, you at least have to anchor it. And you have to be able to lay down or anchor power cables. - there has to be place on-shore for power infrastructure: from management to transformers to batteries, as you don't just dump megawatts of power directly into the grid > when calculating areal requirements you should also calculate land needed for waste disposal. I doubt any nuclear waste disposal takes up 400 square kilometres.
        N1H1L 5y ago
        Again wrong. Singapore is building HVDC lines from Australia as we speak. We have been building underwater cables for a very long time (100+ years now) so it's pretty much a solved problem currently. Deep sea oil rigs have existed for decades at this point. Turbines in comparison are easier than oil rigs. So tl:dr; we can absolutely plonk them down everywhere, and in fact we should.

by N1H1L 5y ago

dmitriid 5y ago

> half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. I exaggerated of course [1]. But you probably don't realize how huge half of New York city, or 444 sq. km is. And the area is likely to larger because you will need additional infrastructure to handle all this and maintain the generators. [1] There are 43 countries smaller than that: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than+440+sq+km https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than...

N1H1L 5y ago
True. However NYC also has a huge population and enormous energy footprint. The population of all those countries combined is around 5 million, less than a third of NYC. I specifically chose NYC, as it's one of the most densely populated areas, so its energy requirements are that much higher.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  This doesn't have anything to do with my original point. 400 square kilometers is a huge area. But sure. You "only" need one of those to match the output of a nuclear power plant. You "only" need to fully clear that area of all obstacles (including trees, for example), and provide that area with roads, access points, battery storage, power transformers... Edit: take this report on area comparisons between nuclear, solar, and wind with a grain of salt. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar... But even if they are 10x off, that's still enormous land requirements.
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    You don't need to clear trees and build roads for offshore wind. Nobody is denying that nuclear is concentrated. However, this concentration also misses one step - when calculating areal requirements you should also calculate land needed for waste disposal.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > You don't need to clear trees and build roads for offshore wind. As if that makes problem go away. Type Isle of Wight into Google Maps. Its area is 384 square kilometers. Then zoom out. And then zoom out again. You can still see it at a zoom level that encompasses all of Europe. That's the area you need to cover in these megaturbines. And no, you can't just plop them down anywhere: - they have to be sufficiently close to the shore (you can't expect power cables to be infinitely long, you need easy access for maintenance etc.) - the seabed has to allow for construction: even if you don't embed it into the seabed, you at least have to anchor it. And you have to be able to lay down or anchor power cables. - there has to be place on-shore for power infrastructure: from management to transformers to batteries, as you don't just dump megawatts of power directly into the grid > when calculating areal requirements you should also calculate land needed for waste disposal. I doubt any nuclear waste disposal takes up 400 square kilometres.
      - N1H1L 5y ago
        Again wrong. Singapore is building HVDC lines from Australia as we speak. We have been building underwater cables for a very long time (100+ years now) so it's pretty much a solved problem currently. Deep sea oil rigs have existed for decades at this point. Turbines in comparison are easier than oil rigs. So tl:dr; we can absolutely plonk them down everywhere, and in fact we should.