No, but it necessitates a massive *environmental* impact. And COST
An area the size of Wales needs to be turbined just to generate the average of what we generate pre EV and heatpump deployment..
Both energy density and EROEI are at some level things that impose limits. By making some other solution *more* attractive and in the case of negative EROEI, making renewables simply unsustainable.
The seas around the UK are not a benign environment, especially for something that has to float. Solutions have to be practical and if someone is promoting wind as being cheaper it has to be be financially viable as well.
Whatever happened to the millions/billions poured into wave energy research? Could it be that installations are easily destroyed with the wrong type of waves?
It is in the end a matter of system cost, which relates to EROEI and to Energy density
The problem is that Wind operators are not held to account for the costs they incur on the environment, on the rest of the grid which has to pay through the nose both to connect to them and to provide alternatives when the wind isn't there.
Neither do they count the energy or carbon cost of either installation of the extended grid, systems to ameliorate their intermittency, damage to the environment, decommissioning or maintenance.
Since that is all paid by someone else.
Whereas nuclear has a small footprint, needs very little backup, can be built relatively close to where the energy is needed, and connected by short and often existing wires to the demand centres, using cables that will always be running at design capacity.
It is simply a way more efficient use of the grid and of the land area.
Not wher you're going, you fossil freak
Whether the turbines float or are plinth mounted at sea, and whether they cover an area the size of Wales or even greater, they won’t produce more that 40% of their plated capacity, and have no means of overcoming the intermittency of wind. For every MW of wind generation, 1MW if backup is needed. When the wind doesn’t blow, nothing gets generated. It’s a law of physics.
It doesn’t matter what the energy density of wind is, when the wind doesn’t blow, nothing gets generated. Last winter there were no less than 3 separate 2-week periods where the wind didn’t blow - and this at a time of very high demand.
I don't think you can argue about any of that, but governments being unable to plan far enough ahead without the next government changing things will never grasp the nuclear nettle in my view. There has to be a long term decision to ride out the problem delays with Nuclear and to design them with serviceability in mind. If you have to decommission them in 30 years you will never find anyone to build them and run them, assuming we remain capitalists. Money is illusory as well, since there is only a vague idea of what productivity is worth in any market. You cannot spend productivity, or print money against it if other countries do not believe you value it properly. Brian
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.