Current Events > World's largest wind farm to be done by 2020, will power 1 million homes

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/business/worlds-largest-wind-farm/index.html

My God this is awesome. More please! Let's see which country can compete to build the largest wind and solar installations.
---

In before someone complains about dead birds and/or sulfur hexafluoride.

Cool
---

B-b-b-b-but the golf courses!
---

Shotgunnova posted...

B-b-b-b-but the golf courses!

huh?

I'm astounded by how much larger offshore wind is than onshore.

We just built our largest project ever and it's 160 turbines each about 3 mw on average (we use a combination of different models).
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

In before someone complains about dead birds and/or sulfur hexafluoride.

The bigger concern I would say is how is the excess power stored? Consumers still pay for all that energy even if they don't need it if the utility can't store it somehow.

And SF6
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

The bigger concern I would say is how is the excess power stored? Consumers still pay for all that energy even if they don't need it if the utility can't store it somehow.

Until supercapictors become viable at absurd ampere hours, probably just vane the fans during low demand.

And SF6

I do have to wonder why plain old nitrogen or any given noble gas can't serve the same role.

It's a good development but they can go bigger. 1.2 GW is a drop in the bucket but at least it's a step in the right direction. The second portion of the project is set to go online in 2020 for an additional 1.8 GW unless I'm mistaken. Nuclear power plants can feasibly top 8 GW and take around 4 years to complete, so it's on parity with Hornsea 1 as planning began in 2016. It would be interesting to see an overall cost comparison between the two based on energy output/storage/building costs.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

B-b-b-b-but the golf courses!

huh?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47400641
---

Does the north sea get hurricanes or big wind storms?

Just a single rotation of one of the turbines can power the average home for an entire day

That's pretty badass
---

Shotgunnova posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Shotgunnova posted...

B-b-b-b-but the golf courses!

huh?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47400641

...how is looking at giant windmills worse than looking at just water?

That's cool how far away from shore it can be.
---

Kombucha posted...

It's a good development but they can go bigger. 1.2 GW is a drop in the bucket but at least it's a step in the right direction. The second portion of the project is set to go online in 2020 for an additional 1.8 GW unless I'm mistaken. Nuclear power plants can feasibly top 8 GW and take around 4 years to complete, so it's on parity with Hornsea 1 as planning began in 2016. It would be interesting to see an overall cost comparison between the two based on energy output/storage costs.

From a marketing standpoint I would assume nuclear hands down, wind has to convert wind to electricity way out in the middle of the ocean, and it is not cheap to move that electricity from all the way out there to the consumer, also there is 0 storage.

Nuclear, you can build the plant a lot closer to the consumer, takes up waaaaay less of a footprint, and you can just turn the plant off to store the power.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

In before someone complains about dead birds and/or sulfur hexafluoride.

Wind is fucking trash, why you instantly on the defensive unprovoked

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Nuclear, you can build the plant a lot closer to the consumer, takes up waaaaay less of a footprint, and you can just turn the plant off to store the power.

Strange how France seems to the one taking the lead here.

A couple or three incidents, and the rest of the world freaks out at the mere suggestion of nuclear.

So much cancer.
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

From a marketing standpoint I would assume nuclear hands down, wind has to convert wind to electricity way out in the middle of the ocean, and it is not cheap to move that electricity from all the way out there to the consumer, also there is 0 storage.

Nuclear, you can build the plant a lot closer to the consumer, takes up waaaaay less of a footprint, and you can just turn the plant off to store the power.

All solid points.

Questionmarktarius posted...

A couple or three incidents, and the rest of the world freaks out at the mere suggestion of nuclear.

It's frustrating but entirely understandable considering the fallout basically results in entire cities being rendered abandoned. The municipalities and companies that failed to upgrade or decommission plants built on old unsafe technology are mainly to blame though. Those incidents are definitely not even remotely accurate when it comes to assessing the safety of modern nuclear power plants. I'm not sure how France managed to shift public opinion on it either.

Anyways anything is better than coal. Don't want to derail
---

very cool. hopefully it doesn't cause cancer rates to skyrocket
---

GoodOlJr posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

In before someone complains about dead birds and/or sulfur hexafluoride.

Wind is fucking trash, why you instantly on the defensive unprovoked

Wind is better than nuclear power and far better than coal.
---

Kombucha posted...

I'm not sure how France managed to shift public opinion on it either.

Electricity is supposedly the only thing in France that's not expensive. Especially so when compared to Germany, which is heavy into renewables.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/frances-nuclear-clean-energy-is-over-three-times-faster-and-cheaper-than-germanys-solar-and-wind.html

Whatever they save someone will pocket it as a bonus.
---

creativerealms posted...

So much cancer.

Don't worry, that's why they built it in the middle of the sea so that people wouldn't get sound cancer, very smart of them, but they haven't solved the problem of not being able to watch TV unless the wind blows, sad.

bknight posted...

creativerealms posted...

So much cancer.

Don't worry, that's why they built it in the middle of the sea so that people wouldn't get sound cancer, very smart of them, but they haven't solved the problem of not being able to watch TV unless the wind blows, sad.

Very sad. So sad
---

Hop103 posted...

Wind is better than nuclear power and far better than coal.

What about hydro/solar

---

We need these in the US immediately. We have one decade to save the planet and I don't see enough politicians taking a stand for renewables.

---

friendbuddypal posted...

We need these in the US immediately. We have one decade to save the planet and I don't see enough politicians taking a stand for renewables.

Offshore wind in the US is really difficult to achieve. Most of the Californian coast is off limits because of the military and where it isn't gets the nimby treatment, as does a lot of the east coast.

Not impossible, just easier to do onshore at the moment. Once a few of the projects in progress now are completed we should see a bigger move towards it, I hope.
---

theAteam posted...

friendbuddypal posted...

We need these in the US immediately. We have one decade to save the planet and I don't see enough politicians taking a stand for renewables.

Offshore wind in the US is really difficult to achieve. Most of the Californian coast is off limits because of the military and where it isn't gets the nimby treatment, as does a lot of the east coast.

Not impossible, just easier to do onshore at the moment. Once a few of the projects in progress now are completed we should see a bigger move towards it, I hope.

Also there is the whole problem of the US not being an island thing
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

theAteam posted...

friendbuddypal posted...

We need these in the US immediately. We have one decade to save the planet and I don't see enough politicians taking a stand for renewables.

Offshore wind in the US is really difficult to achieve. Most of the Californian coast is off limits because of the military and where it isn't gets the nimby treatment, as does a lot of the east coast.

Not impossible, just easier to do onshore at the moment. Once a few of the projects in progress now are completed we should see a bigger move towards it, I hope.

Also there is the whole problem of the US not being an island thing

True but much of the population lives near the coast regardless.
---

We have a lot of wind and solar being installed in the US, not sure if we really need offshore wind. But would be cool nonetheless.

We can do it!!!

Also why are people posting about cancer? What is the joke I'm missing?
---