They aren't only "ruining the landscape". They are ruining nature and have horrible impact on the ecosystem. I rather have a nuclear power plant then thousands of windmills that are destroying the oceans or forests.
As an update for this. Denmark, Germany, Holland and Belgium just signed an agreement for upscaling this energy island by 10 times aiming for a total produce of 150 gigawatt (equals 230.000.000 households) Which is half of what the EU aim for as a total. :) The project is set at a pricelabel around 134.363.000.000 Euro / 142.442.000.000 USD :)
@@australien6611 Not in the open ocean areas where they would be most efficient. Denmark has a few uninhabited islands but they're located in between the larger islands and close to land.
Just imagine how far we could be if mankind learnt to live with one another and concentrated on sorting out our problems. The sun and say 20 solar power stations in orbit and the power transferred down to ground substations using microwaves The whole world working as one , and living on Mars and terriforming the planet would happen in our lifetime…..
I'm not against your sentiment in any way, but this is about money, as everything always is. If they could make more money by not selling the electricity, they will.
Man this channel is off to a flying start... Awesome work guys! Have watched the B1M for a long time and love that we're getting even more high quality videos here!
That's one thing about the Scandinavians, they are very creative when it comes to solving problems. My country, Singapore, is also embarking on a major project with Australia. We are going to pipe green energy (solar farms) from Australia all the way to Singapore. It's going to supply some 20% of our electricity once it is fully operational
We are creative with coming up with non-solutions. This project is nonsense. The amount of rare earth minerals needed to make this scaleable and realistic would require thousands if not tens of thousands of new mines. The average lead time for a mine from discovery to mining is 30 years. A significant portion of those rare-earth metals are found in Russia. We need oil and gas.
@@johanneswestman935 I dunno man. China has built out 300+GW of wind power in the later years. It's definitely possible. The main problem is that wind power isn't that stable (but I imagine it's pretty stable in the north sea). To say we need fossil fuels is just wrong though. We have perfectly viable power solutions such as: Hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass etc.
@@kristianl7117 You don't know because you haven't done the math. The amount of commodities going in and out of storage on the markets is information that is openly available. Go look at the supply, go look at what the inputs are and do the math. The conclusion is pretty simple. It's not possible. It might be possible for Hamburg to be "100 % renewable" if only Hamburg does it. But if everyone is going to do it - at the same time - there aren't enough minerals and open mines in the world to produce that supply. Fossil fuels are absolutely critical. Wind doesn't even account for 5 % while coal accounts for over 60 % of Chinese electricity generation.
@@johanneswestman935 28% of Chinese energy comes from renewable sources. This is an increase of 10pp in 10 years. Sure, fossil fuels are needed in the short term, but it is very possible (almost certain) that we will transition away from fossils entirely in a few decades.
@@kristianl7117 Sorry Kristian, it is evident to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. You are clearly not an energy investor or anything of the sort. Fossil fuels are not going anywhere. There aren't enough metals to create your utopia. The vast majority of Chinese renewables is hydropower - which is not an option everywhere. We are moving from coal to natural gas.
One of the main engineering firms involved, Royal HaskoningDHV, is a Dutch firm. A lot of the video material is made by them, and they are credited in the description
LOL.....one day a country with almost nil resources will realise they are sitting on a gold mine and it's the ground under their feet that is worth more than all the gold in the World ever mined.....that is, they can mine their dirt and sell it to countries that want to change their topography by raising their ground level or changing their coastline etc........doing it with sand like Dubai is not all that productive for vegetation due to the salt content, but above sea level earth is almost salt free.
Problem with windpower is that you cant control the production, you will always need nuclear, water or fossilpower to be able to turn up the production by the press of a button and restrict it when needed. Waterpower can store the energy effectivly since you pump up water when the electric is at low cost and releasing it at high. If you make hydrogen when low and burn it when high you can also store but you only get 1/3 of the energy you put in, so its far from effective
So could nuclear power. Those Islands are probably going to be an expensive flop, there are so many other methods to store excess power much closer to where it is needed.
A combination of all three would be amazing if possible, imagine having solar, tidal and wind forces all producing energy from the same island. Solar wherever there is space available and wind turbines which sit on top of the tidal turbines. Someone who is actually knowledgeable within these areas (cause I'm definitely not) might prove it impossible but one can dream
When you say tidal, you mean taking the energy of the wave or the current? The problem with wave is that you have to be perpendicular of it to take the more energy from it (in the atlantic cost the wave has an power between 30 and 60kW par meter). Putting this in a floatting wind turbine might be counter productive because it is not large enough. Also it is complicated to transform this energy because it is a mix of cinetic and potential (speed of the wave and height of the wave). A lot of research have stopped because it has been considerate not really interesting despite the potential (1400TWh in the world). For the current, not stupid. Good idea to have but the problem is, if you put a floating wind + water turbine, if the flow of the wind and the flow of the water are not align it is a mess I think. It the two are opposite you basically have a spinning top. Not saying impossible, just really complicated and also not sure it would be interesting because you then have more masse (two motors, two turbine...) so the floating system must be way bigger which mean more material... Impossible to know if it would be interesting without a study of several years ^^
@@SioGG well the solar part is a bit useless. First of all, it’s a small surface. The amount of solar panels you can fit on there is gonna maybe power the lights on the island lol. Second, it’s in the middle of the ocean, which is most of the time (I’m nearly sure) very cloudy and stormy. So putting funds into solar panels where they will produce like 70% of what they would produce on land, is a waste of money.
@@Ladosligese yes you go ahead and convince me that solar panels in the middle of an ocean, the Northern Sea nonetheless, can produce more than 70% of what they would produce on land far away of the sea and the constant clouds..
Looks cool, but $34B for 3 GW, or $11/installed watt is insanely expensive. You can build conventional nuclear for half that, and it's a reliable baseload. Scale-wise, $34B is also similar to what ITER will cost to help develop fusion. We need a future where sub-Saharan Africans enjoy higher living standards than Americans do today, and wind isn't up to that.
Imagine how much more effective a nuclear power plant would have been at that size, or how much smaller and environmentally effective it would be at the same productivity.
I mean if you wanna build yourself a nuclear plant then ok, Just keep it in your country. All I can say is that Denmark has consistantly been very anti nuclear. I mean heck those famous nuclear power no thanks stickers were designed here. We've only ever had one small reactor at a research facility and for training, and even then we've had serious issues for decades finding spaces to store the waste material from it.
@@drdewott9154 Nuclear Energy was killed off in Denmark by the invented scaremongering stories pandering to the ignorant in the downmarket newspaper Ekstra Bladet in the late 70s, and not by logical thinking.
You mean Indonesia where there are some of the most active earthquake zones? OMG we are all gonna die in a nuclear holocaust. Do you nuclear freaks not take lessons from 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and the countless other issues hereunder the waste.
Stuff like this is proof we already have everything we need to be an energy-sufficient species, but because of politics and greed, projects like these always get axed.
Of course we do - this is _four times_ as expensive _in estimate_ as nuclear power plants per MW. And that's ignoring maintenance, which is _much_ cheaper for NPPs than for offshore wind parks. Heck, this thing costs more than ITER :) And that's just the estimate. Looking at similar projects, you can expect easily 3x overruns, and quite probably much higher maintenance costs than expected (it isn't very long ago that we figured out just how much damage water does to wind turbines). And then consider how poorly this can scale even in theory, and how tiny part of the energy mix of Europe it could ever supply, and how poor wind is for baseline power... Politics and greed is just about right. But it's not just about the oil barons, you see :)
@Luaan: The costly “renewable energy “ projects are the result of the Climate Delusion and the Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion. Popular delusions are determining energy policy in many parts of the world.
Or is it possibly because it doesnt work... You get huge ammount of power when you dont need it thus a frequenzy gets fuckd up and you have to shut it down or the other scenario where you get no power at all when you really need it and the frequenzy get fuckd up yet again so you have to shut down or like in most countrys you start THE ENVIROMENTALY FRIENDLY GASTURBINE............
Fill all the oceans with those wind turbines...nuclear power was the best thing we had and going away from it killed more animals and destroyed the environment much more, not to mention made more humans poorer.
Someone forgot to mention the millions of tons of raw materials and energy it would take to build this ! And we will run out of copper etc before long . Mars , here we come .
@A Z nuclear is cool but it's expensive and takes ages to build. It has its own advantages - consistent, baseline power in all weather conditions and times of year - and there's no need to pretend that much cheaper things like wind or solar are a waste of money just to try push nuclear
@A Z You're a gullible idiot. Nuclear is not the magic bullet you think it is and it can't even compete with wind and solar on a cost per megawatt basis and certainly not when it comes to how quickly it takes to build. Finland has spent almost two decades building one reactor which ended up costing 8.5 billion Euro and which only provides 1.6 GW, meanwhile this project will provide 10 GW at the end. If you were to provide an equal amount of power with nuclear at this cost it'd cost 51.8 billion Euro and that's not even getting into the time issue. Something which we do not have a lot of so even if nuclear was cost efficient it still wouldn't make sense to build because it'd take 20 years before we just get a few power plants done, meanwhile Horns Rev 3 was finished 5 years after the first tender went out and only took 3 years to build. You've been conned by people who want to sell an impractical and expensive energy solution but you're not gonna ever acknowledge that because it makes you feel superior to the people who actually know their shit. This whole attempt at a nuclear revival is just lead by people who don't know shit about the green transition and is frankly the most effective disinformation campaign since climate change denialism.
1. As an at scale alteration of the face of the planet it kind of looks like environmental vandalism to me 2. The islands are unnecessary for the undersea cable network 3. Nuclear power is a denser by many orders of magnitude, and ultimately cleaner energy source with a lower carbon footprint that will work just fine through a super- volcanic, asteroidal or ironically most likely,.. a nuclear winter Crazy I know but given the geological temperature record I am kind of worried about going back into the ice age. It has after all been most of our history and that graph and the ice sheet expanse during previous ice epochs both look freaky hard to engineer away WHEN they return. Thats right its when. I don't believe for a second that geological temperature graph is just going to miraculously stay flat forever now... kind of obvious when you think about it. As for the green credentials of that obscenity of metal in the ocean.. Making all that steel and glass and spreading it out over so much area takes a lot of DIESEL and there are never the cost of recycling them at the end of their useful lives built in. Those seas will look pretty fucked up in only 150 years. Graveyards of rusting metal wrecks. Great place to film dystopic movies though. and... Ever heard of persistent organic pollutants? (POP's) yeah I thought not. aldrin ¹ chlordane ¹ dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT)¹ dieldrin¹ endrin¹ heptachlor¹ hexachlorobenzene ¹,² mirex¹ toxaphene¹ polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ¹,² polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins²(dioxins) polychlorinated dibenzofurans² (furans) 1-Intentionally Produced. 2-Unintentionally Produced - Result from some industrial processes and combustion. So these are the things you are distracted from being horrified at by worrying about by not very dangerous non toxic bogey man gas Heretical.. I know.. sorry
"The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050." The cost of not doing anything would be a lot higer in the long term.
@Nillerzen: You cannot make accurate economic forecasts 29 years into the future. Benefits of a warming climate are 1. Increased agricultural yields 2. Reduced winter heating costs 3. Reduced deaths from hypothermia 4. Postponement of the next glacial maximum Deleterious effects of warming climate are: 1. Increased summer cooling costs 2. More deaths from heat stroke 3. Higher maximum interglacial sea level with more coastal erosion and flooding. The balance between the beneficial and deleterious effects varies greatly by location, and also is highly dependent upon the magnitude of the warming. We have so called “expert international panels “ churning out a lot of costly and useless propaganda.
@@johngeier8692I agree that you can't make an accurate forecast that long into the future, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to foresee the dangers over the horizon. But i do know, that i will have a greater amount of trust in " expert international panels " the almost anyone else. Since it's literally their job.
I'd love to see one of Boston Harbor's islands converted this way. Maybe Shag Rock island or the Outer Brewster. We used to put forts on these islands, putting a power farm would be an even better use.
Wouldn’t it just make more sense to build an “energy rig” like an oil rig rather than a static island both in terms of sea level rise issues and in case it would make sense elsewhere in the future?
Why would that make more sense? And what is a "energy rig" it's wind energy how do you make a "rig" wind turbines are noise too you don't want to live near one
@@Juuk-D what I mean is I feel like it would make more sense to put the storage such as batteries on a floating platform rather than an island built into the seabed. That was you cut out a bunch of problems like sea level rise, erosion and probably a lot of environmental damage like sedimentation.
@@rowanbixler4700 From what I understand it becomes extremely difficult to keep a platform stable and in position once the size gets too big. The massive inertia can pose a lot of danger to the infrastructure that connects it to the mainland.
global warming centers around humans causing it, presumably their logic is creating "green" alternatives will stop that altogether, of course mother nature won't care in a few centuries.
HELLO my eu brothers from America 🇺🇸 I hope we can partner up together the US EU CANZUK nations should work together for reliable and safe energy independence projects like this. THIS BE GOOD for ECONOMIC cooperation and for our ENERGY sectors to have stable and safe. Energy independence. If US and EU can work together and work with The three SEAS INITIATIVE as well as canzuk. We can show our energy potential politically and remind the world of western COOPERATION.
I didn‘t really understand what the exact purpose of those islands should be? Why build it in the sea instead of the coast? There still could be hubs on the coast and the cables could still run to other countries?
Instead of building an island, they should place the data centers and PtX plants on shore, so they could use the excess heat for district heating - but more wind turbines is obviously great news.
It would most likely be moored super vessels rather than building entire islands in the future. There are already plans for vessels of 500x200 meter that are moored and tethered together. It makes it far more flexible and able to withstand errosion problems which islands would be susectible for in the north sea. The oil and gas industry already has extensive knowledge within this field, there's no need to look further than to an FPSO which may be stationary for 30+ years.
Makes a lot of sense to use them in the Aegean sea. Vast amount of energy capacity from a region that wll connect the electric grid of Europe and Middle east through Euro Asia Interconnector
Vessels like that aren't built to be easily expandable and to provide facilities for industrial production so they wouldn't be suited for this task. Building an artificial isn't isn't that expensive either, especially if you're using sand that has been dredged up from some of the projects that are currently underway to expand navigable lanes.
Osaka-Kansai International Airport is on a man made island in Japan. The island is sinking. Off the coast of Dubai, man made islands were built. Million dollar homes built on the islands. The islands are sinking. In Garfield Heights, Ohio USA. A construction company paved over a landfill, then built several buildings for retail stores. The buildings are sinking into the landfill and you can smell rotting garbage in the last remaining store. A power plant built on a man made island is a bad idea.
There is so much unused coastal area in Denmark; this reeks of contractor money schemes. It just makes no kind of sense to build an island from scratch for some wind turbines.
> Costs billions of $$ to build > Isn't as reliable source of electric energy > Makes gaz companies happy > Far superior and sustainable energy production could be achieved with a nuclear powerplant.
Its whole purpose is to store energy, the same wind energy Denmark has a surplus of on windy days, which they have a lot of, instead of selling the energy to Germany, Sweden, Netherland and Norway at a loss. Saying it isn't reliable when its purpose is to make wind energy more reliable is a rather grim mishap. Plus it's a step in the direction of making the shipping and air transportation industry green just like EV's.
@@neeljavia2965 This isn't the early 1900s, we know how these technologies work now, and we also know that It's not going to magically get many orders of magnitude less expensive.
"Climate neutral" sounds simply like political slogan. Energy demands are growing so the demand for resources and this a fact. You do not do any favour for environment by simply offsetting carbon emissions with equivalent amount of green energy. It is like to offer obese person to eat same amount of vegetables as junk food, so to offset harm caused. Sounds good, but obese person will not loose weight by simply consuming even more despite "offset" being healthy food. Reduction of total intake is only viable option.
Easy to please? Bet your wedding night was a blast.😋 Not a bad idea, but if you want serious energy without all that infrastructure and mess in the sea, pit your nation toward fusion. Energy of the stars is only way forwards for hooman.
As an American who has lived in Denmark ( ja jeg kan snakker Dansk) I wish Denmark could just govern and control the world, the Danes are always on the cutting edge of social, environnemental and humanitarian issues. Skal!
Looks amazing, but I’m confused why go to all the expense of building an island, why not just connect all the wind turbines together and straight to the coast, what does the island do other than act as a very expensive concentrator point? Would have thought a tethered ship or an oil-rig type of installation would have been simpler, and Denmark is about to have a whole load of spare oil rigs? Be interesting to know how deep the water is 80km out because that’s a lot of piling to do for all those turbines.
Good question. I think it is lots about marketing. I mean would this video be same interesting if they would have talked about a „small“ land section instead of a new island? But still, i think it would be more efficient to just build by standard model. They would be finished faster and it would be cheaper.
The island will house a transformer station that changes the current from AC to DC. With AC it is not practical to transmit electricity over great distances, which halts the idea of fully harnessing the great wind energy potential in the North Sea. Reducing loss from transmission before utilisation is also the idea behind, possibly, placing power-to-x and energy storage facilities at the islands. That said, the Danish energy company Ørsted did propose a plan to expand the capacity without needing to build islands. But this was rejected by the government. So you still have a point. Ørsted has now joined the tender process for the project regardless.
@@Kvadraten376 The island is not so far from the coast as it, the distance is not so great. But I don't think the Danish govt. want all these ugly buildings along the coast. I would agree.
@@TheBooban for submarine cables the cost-benefit for DC transmission already breaks even with AC transmission after 50 km. The energy island is placed 80 km out from the coast, and wind turbines much further out in the future will only enhance the benefit.
From the technical point of view - this project is a challenge and will be full of lot of innovations and solutions to help us in the future. As for the energy generation - it will be interesting to see how they will deal with the deterioration of the propeller wings. But looking at the price tag - someone will get f.. rich :)
Power problem is solvable by building the only clean and dependable energy source wich is atomic enerergy. Any other source is either too weak, depends on battery effieciency, or plain polluting. Materials to create windmills, solars and batteries are far from beeing friendly to environment. Average atomic power plant produces one bucket of radiation waste a YEAR. In comparition 1 kg of coal produces 4 kWh o energy, 1kg of enriched isotope produces 2,700,000 kWh. Do the math.
Think about how much energy it takes to make all these facilities, all this metal, concrete, ships and everything! And all the service and refurbishment. Again it is the story of the Wonderful Soupstone! (I am Danish, yet I think this plan is so so stupid)
Taking all that into account, wind energy is 14g of co2 per kilowatt. While coal is 870 g per kw, gas is 464 g per kw. So stop talking this nonsense when you can google it in 10 seconds dumbass
Since all of the critical components are housed in the top of the turbine it's actually not that difficult, the generator and gearing is housed about 150 meters above sea level and some of the turbines being tested right now are taller than the Eiffel tower.
@@hedgehog3180 Advice in Australia, if you live within 30Km of the coast line then you may need to monitor the amount of Salt consumed in food products.
Got to be mighty enviromentaly friendly when theres a storm and those batteries end up in the ocean :D It will also mean that you will have to build equally many gasturbines or any other fast acting powersuppier coal for instance?
HEY! Congratulations to this channel! 💐 My best wishes! What ever the future holds for this project, it will be reported with expertise, excellent footage and visuals and a superb narration, one can't stop listening to! :-)
Centralized large-scale electrical power creates centralized political power. That is bad. Decentralized small-scale electrical power creates independence and freedom.
One of the biggest challenges with this project will likely be designing and installing an effective ground grid. The grid will have to be installed beneath the seabed, but must be connected to the auxiliary ground grid within the artificial island itself. I’d definitely like to get details on this and see how this island can be effectively grounded. Interesting project, very innovative!
I'm more skeptical on the wind turbine tech. Creation and maintenance of wind turbines and solar farms are still expensive and are not environmentally friendly with the materials they use.
@@CyberWolf755 Oh ok, so what are you suggesting now? Should we use coal and gas then? Nuclear is a tiny bit better than wind, but nuclear power is alot more expensive. So what exactly would you want?
No worries, almost entire Danish power grid is long replaced into the ground. A result of one of the few sensible decisions a former energy minister made some 25 years ago ...
Reminds me of the tiny offshore oil drilling islands just offshore in Long Beach harbor. There are 100s of oil wells. Most people don’t even know what they do. Eventually they will be retired. California is adding a lot of renewable power and hopefully in the near future we can figure out the pitfalls as we go along
Here in Europe there are projects for converting old drilling stations into energy hubs powered by wind turbines. They can be converted to hydrogen gas generating plants. You can store the hydrogen in old gas fields or transport the gas to shore using pipelines. Hydrogen is nice because it can actually be used to store renewable energy :)
How much energy will it produce when it's not very windy? How cost effect is a windfarm not producing much power? How cost effective will it be to have two energy production systems? Because you need to have a second one to back up these wind farms when they're not working...
I'm still skeptical on the creation cost and used materials, energy production capacity, storage and maintenance cost of solar and wind farms, offshore or not.
Denmark should just build sweet nuclear power instead. 34B in nuclear can power much more than 3 million+ homes. Nuclear has low maintenance cost meaning higher profit, it's a reliable source of energy, has long life expectancy, it's safe, very high effeciency rates and nuclear power plants have small impact on nature. 120 thousand m2 articial island is no good for marinelife.
@@peterzichau6994 The problem is they don’t produce “12 GW “ all the time, nor even most if the time. Some of the time they produce nothing. After the EU windless 2021 doesn’t everyone know that by now? So along w that 12 GW of wind will come 12 GW of gas or coal. With nuclear, it never all switches off, and doesn’t need gas-coal. Stop screwing around.
As the north sea is quite shallow, all the countries bordering it can start such projects. Btw. "A coastline near you" just means where denmark is building them now for me. Schleswig-Holstein FTW!
@@glennwatson3313 The north sea, in the last iceage, actually was above water. You can search for Doggerland if you want more information. The Doggerbank, how its now called, is ~30m deep and depth rarely reaches beyond 50m anywhere but in the Norwegian trench. To put it simple what happened, in the last iceage the ice on asia pressed it down, and like on a teeter tauter pushed europe up. the UK wasnt an island, and was connected to mainland EU by Doggerland, when the ice melted asia started rising, and europe started sinking.
@@FantasKanal I'll add that the global sea level was about 120m lower than today from the mass of ice covering land in the Northern parts of both Eurasia and North America. Locally, ice cover on the Scandinavian peninsula depressed the crust quite dramatically and that land is rising as of today. The line - your teeter-totter, goes diagonally through Denmark with land sinking South of the line and rising North.
"...appearing of a coastline near you." Not very probable here in Paraguay. But then again, our power is already 100% renewable thanks to hydroelectric.
It would be even greater if they have come up with a design for a biodegradable wind turbine, since unused turbines are creating so much pollution these after discarded. But this is a great start!
Consider revising this to include the added potential yield from the UK and Norway's massive wind farm areas plus their respective hydro, PV, SMR roll-out in the UK sooner than mooted and other relevant green initiatives including tidal and wave. Your video makes it seem as if Denmark is in the lead when it is not. Its islands ambitions could be greatly helped by the named neighbours. Remember, Europe is NOT just the EU.
You talk in 3-10 GW ranges, when the EU uses nearly 3 TW or 3000GW. You'd have to build hundreds of these islands and as more people switch to electricity for heating and cars that number will only skyrocket.
@@bobincognito6239 You are a bit confused yourself Bob, or perhaps you did not want to mention it. This wind farm will have 10GW of name plate capacity but will never produce 10GW. It will likely average only 25-30% of name plate capacity. Take a look at German wind infrastructure and installed capacity versus power generated. Unlike European politicians and bureaucrats, wind does not blow all the time.
@@MadnessMotorcycle You're the one confuse. In 2018 wind power produced 379,3 TWh in Europe for 204 GW installed. Europe production was 3 300 TWh in 2017
@@bobincognito6239 >You're the one confuse. In 2018 wind power produced 379,3 TWh in Europe for 204 GW installed. Great lets calculate. 204 GW x 24 (hours in day) x 365 (days) = 1 787 040 GWxh per year of "installed" or 1 787 TWxh. 379 TWxh is 21% of that number.
If the network is large enough, storage is not necessary as energy requirements can be shared. Storage can be moved towards the aspects like pumping into dams etc. More countries cooperatively involved the better. It's up to them how far they want to take the Glasgow agreement, and why not possible? We are all human after all. Maybe a dreamer yet this could help peace as many nations have a common interest within as result.
In addition to what James said, power-to-x will be a significant component to this project - and one of the main reasons an island design was chosen to make room for factory-scale power-to-x.
The energy transition should be an and-and-and-story of investing in renewables and energy storage and smart grid and energy savings (because the less energy we waste, the less we have to produce). And the Danish plan is one part of that puzzle.
Ah yes because famously nuclear power is cheap and quick to build, y'know like that reactor in Finland that they've been spending two decades building and, which has had it's cost more than double. In the period that single reactor has been under construction Europe has added several times it's power output in wind energy. If Thorsminde follows schedule then it alone will provide as much power as that reactor. Not to mention the fact that developments in wind energy are happening so fast that turbines being installed today are more than twice as good as those that were installed just 5 years ago.
@@paullangford8179 New wind turbine propellers are built with carbon fiber. Not recyclable. A lot of them will decay easily given the harsh environment of the sea due to humidity and salt content in the air, corrosive to metals and non-plastic material.
I hope there is a certified lifecycle management plan in place to handy windmills that are damaged or require service. Will there be viable process, technologies, methods and partners involved to eliminate landfill use domestically or foreign?
Assuming a life of 25 years, $34Billion to build a 3 GW facility works out to about $0.05/ kWh. Assuming 2 MW output per windmill, that's 1,500 windmills. That's a huge footprint.
