RE:Author, Oxford Physicist, Devout Nuclear SupporterAn eye opener. Wndpower maybe not all it's been made out to be.
Inefficiences of windpower. Also, how much more ocean space will be used in the next 30 years building windfarms if the industry has only really started now? Then decomissioning the many turbines and redundently rebuilding anew every 25 years.
Also compettion for the best wind areas will only increase around the world. Companies bidding outrageous auction prices to build. But in the right areas, windfarms do produce power to make it worthwhile. But probably operating on thin margins. Already have seen Orsted backing out of bidding in Taiwan due to capital cost inflation and high interest rates, among other things.
Or how much land will be used for solar installations. Some have suggested go nuclear. But the amount of power required to produce green hydrogen is huge. When talking 2-5GW just for one facility, would need 4-5 mega dams and large nuclear facilities.
Darlington, Pickering and Bruce combined would only power 2-3 green full powered hydrogen facilities. Natural then to think that green hydrogen is inefficient and costly also.
Will have to continue with fossil fuels and work with carbon capture, etc., until a breakthrough is made on some other front. Can't build dams forever. $17 billion to build Site C in BC and only produces maybe 900 to 1000 MW. Not enough to power major industrial complexes.
Can't import much to satisfy the expected demand either. And money would sadly leave the country.
No easy sustainable solutions on the horizon, just stop gap measures.