Is offshore wind the energy of the future? 

Nope, never. Just a little help for entire energy demand.

No

The complete solution? No. But it is a very sizeable part of renewable energy generation. So yes, it is vital for the future and needs to be expanded much faster.

Depends. In my country, I am for nuclear.

@DW Planet A Please do a documentary about Geothermal Renewable Energy that truly have potential to replace coal fired electricity plants

And strong harnesses.

😂

Especially when one guy asks the other guy "how big are the parts you're greasing today?"

🤣you sir win the comment section of RU-vid today 😂

That's a terrible joke... you should be ashamed of yourself. :)

Germany is screwed. Their electricity costs were 5X the USA costs already. So they are going too...... make them worse. Let me guess. Angela owns a solar farm doesn't she?

@@davidanalyst671 can you please stop? ...

@@rubenschilling germany's government screwed germany. whether you want to admit it or not. lolz. im guessing you dont want to admit it

​@@davidanalyst671 Germany has 2.4 years higher life expectancy than the US, so I think they're doing fine, even with electricity 3 times the price. Not to mention the fact that the "no-go" zones of German cities are actually safer than an average US city. No one's doing heroin or smoking crack in broad daylight.

@@davidanalyst671 Lol what? Who is screwed?^^ They're still one of the richest countries in the world. Paying 31 cents per kilowatt hour doesn't change that. And by the way, all european countries have high electricity prices. Are they all screwed?

I wanted to reaaaaaaaally badly. But wasn't allowed -.-'

I'm glad they didn't let him. He seems a nice fellow, and I wouldn't want to see anything untoward happen to him.

FUSION IS ALREADY "FEASABLE"... LOOK UP AT THE SUN AND HARNESS ITS ENERGY USING SOLAR PANELS SPECIALLY AGRIVOLTAICS ON JUST 7% OF THE GLOBAL FARMLAND FOR MEETING ALL THE WORLD'S ENERGY NEEDS BY 2050 .. YES... 180,000TWhrs/yr... EASILY DONE ....

@@AjayAjay-gz3oz 1- Writing in all caps is a big no-no 2- Experimental fusion reactors can't even break even yet (and even if they did, breaking even is useless). Also, the reactions can't be maintained. It'll take several more scientific revolutions for human made fusion reactors to be able to deliver on their promise. 3- Although I agree that solar must be improved upon and expanded, the fact remains that wind and hydro mop the floor with it, in terms of energy production and efficiency.

@@garry8390 How many TWhrs/yr of Elec. do Fossil Plants provide today... what will it take to providec180,000 TWhrs/yr for say 100 years... AS NO ONE EANTS TO "TAKE CARE"... ARE YOU PREPARED TO TAKE CARE IF ALL THE NUCLEAR WASTE FOR THE NEXT 100,000+ YEARS IN "YOUR BACKYARD"... ?? If not ... then... Who.. Where.. Why.. What Cost..??? for the next 1,000+ Generations... Hopefully these fission reactors are "doing fine" and not become another Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI etc....

@@garry8390 hey did you hear about the earthquake in Melbourne Australia last week? Yeah that's why fission is a bad idea long term. Intraplate earthquakes are real and thus could trigger a major meltdown even if a reactor is nowhere near a faultine.

@@GreenTimeEagle it's a "FACT" nuclear is the safest form of energy per kw/hr.. Fukushima proves how safe it is, (nobody died).. ignorance and fear not facts !!!!

Hey, thanks for your comment. What do you mean by "in kw*h not in kw/h"?

​@@DWPlanetA kW is power and kWh is energy but kW/h doesn't make sense, it doesn't exist.

@@DWPlanetAI am 100% agree with @TheEranty comment. " kW is power and kWh is energy but kW/h doesn't make sense, it doesn't exist."

@MrYngram @TheEranty Thank you for pointing this out, we didn't catch this! You are right, it should be kWh instead of kW/h. We apologize for the mistake and thanks for being attentive.

​@@DWPlanetA You're welcome. You are always doing a great job, just a few mistakes that can be solved with an expert review.

I notice nuclear was not mentioned.

@@darbyheavey406 Nuclear tends to be more carbon-intensive than solar or wind, but less that natural gas, mainly because of all the concrete you need to build a nuclear plant.

nice comment

@@RogueSecret What do you expect?! That they all sink?! They are deconstructed and because their permanent deposit in the ground is illegal in Germany (because of environmental concerns), they are ground up and used as fuel in cement manufacturing and garbage incineration plants.

@@RogueSecret No, they drop them in the ocean lol Of course they recycle it... What 3rd world country do you think Germany is?!

@@RogueSecret Exactly that. They will be deconstructed, brought to the main land and will be recycled. Because you have to it like that in Germany.

the video showed them hammering the turbines into the sea bed, so Im not sure why you said that on this video

@@davidanalyst671 did you watch the video?

iron air batteries are looking good bet , cost is going down but you still need excess power to charge them

Or nuclear as a backup

Convert the 1 TW Hydro Units to 10TW Pumped Hydro Units with 100TWhrs Storage (100hrs Storage of the rated 1TW.. or 10 hrs at 10TW.. the size of the larger Pumped Storage TG's).. You can then Store-n-Convert 100TWhrs/Day... or 40,000TWhrs/yr to support 20% S2S (Sunset -To-Sunrise) Energy Storage for a 100% Solar Powered 150TW Global System... producing 180,000TWhrs/yr... EASILY DONE ... NOW DO IT...

@@AjayAjay-gz3oz not easy - enviromentalist have blocked these schemes.(same with tidal) . However pump storag has a low density of power per ltr . and requires a head of water preferably 1000 mtrs . Almost all of England is too low to make it practical which is why Scotland and Wales have ours. France uses there hydro to back up nuclear and countries like Norway with low population have readly adopted as much as they can. pumped seawater has issues with corrosion and wildlife , needs cleaning like ships do. just for the sake of it I'm going off to work out how much water will be needed and how much it would cost per GW capacity to get 100TWh storage.

It could be possible to use battery containers to be directly charged from the off-shore farm and then taken to closest container port to be swapped to container ships. 7MWh/TEU is very doable. If the Danish decide to make that artificial island that could be one battery swapping hub for container ships. 😎

It still not clear yet, if the superconducting technology is really more cost effective in the long run. Besides the higher construction cost you also have more costs for maintaining that. And normal high voltage DC transmission is actually not that bad. So I’m not sure if we will see this technology be used widely.

建築一條電纜。比起生產大量電池更便宜和對環境友善。因為最佳的清潔能源儲存方法。就是立即由適當的人將清潔電力用掉。不需要儲能就是最便宜的儲能方法。

@@Dani004able Sure, but there are already commercial applications since 2010. A lot of old and small to midsize water plants got refitted with superconducting generators in Germany. I'm optimistic it will become viable for wind turbines too. Afterwards the production capacity will rise high enough to build overland transmission lines.

@@juliane__ for generators, I completely agree. For the transmission over long distances, I would say that’s a big maybe. What I was trying to say, it’s not sure what we will use in the future. I think both ways are viable.

,@@Dani004able I agree with your thinking. I wanted to point out superconducting is viable, because it is understated what is possible and built for at least a decade. And with all disrupting technology, if it gets track it will take a few years to see the main market share. For now, long-distance transmission is, I guess, ten years away to become feasible. But we will see if DC can still compete since it is still a new technology. I just love to see, we can build a better future, no matter what is the tech. It has to be the suitable tech.

Electrical engineers and power company accountants are mostly the folks who care about that type of analysis. Electricians are usually too pooped after carrying heavy things, or greasing heavy things to care.

"Households per year" lol

And the cost per MWh with the cost per kWh :D

@@VolkerHett LOL, my jaw dropped to the floor until I realized that the reporters just screwed it up.

They are building the jackets for sophia here where im working

Hi thanks for the info. Are these wind farms (you mention) floating or fixed to the sea bed?

@@stanleyadamson912 fixed. Roughly around 2030 UK will begin running out of shallow waters where it is commercially feasible to install fixed windfarms. I understand that there is an environmental concern as well, this is particularly prominent in Dogger Bank area. Nevertheless, at the moment floating windfarms are still a tech of the future, reserved for the deep sea areas with consistent wind streams. UK has two floating farms at the moment: Kincardine (50MW) and Hywind Scotland (30MW), which is a fracture of the 1200MW Hornsea One. UK wants to install 1GW (1000MW) of floating windfarms by 2030. And going forward we can do a cautionary prediction that floating windfarms will grow rapidly, as they allow for greater flexibility 🙃 Maybe one day they will replace old, fixed to the sea bed wind turbines, when those will reach their end of life?

What about China? They are building a farm that once completed, will have a capacity of 1700 MW. It seems that they are also generating more wind power than UK in 2021.

Proud? Our electricity has gone sky high because of this push towards renewables. Many utility computations are going bust, people won't be able to afford to hear their home over this Christmas. Renewables had done this!

@@terenceiutzi4003 No idea what that has to do with my original comment

@@terenceiutzi4003 I have my own problems with wind turbines, and indeed every energy source carries at least one major drawback: There are no ideal solutions - only trade-offs; one attempts to arrange the most beneficial such trade-off while recognizing it will be imperfect. Do wind turbines kill more birds than cats? Are they a particular risk for ‘high-value’ flying creatures such as endangered species? How effective are so-called bladeless turbines? And if wind is removed as an energy option, what effect will this have on the renewable movement & energy independence more generally? I’d love to hear your plan for replacing wind power

@@terenceiutzi4003 So the questions that have to be answered then: can new wind turbines be manufactured in an eco-friendly fashion, and recycled/reused at the end of their service life? Can they be built to last, unlike earlier models? Do they now - or can they be engineered in the future to - produce a meaningful amount of renewable energy? Again, the issue comes down to which trade-off is best overall. There are serious problems concerning electric cars, hydrogen power, geothermal energy, and solar power. We have to look at all the variables, and determine which renewable(s) can be engineered/applied in the most effective and environmentally friendly way possible.

Maybe in the short run, but in the long run we're going to have so much clean energy it's going to come out of our ears. It's going to make the 20th century look like the Middle Ages.

You can start by turning off your computer.

My computer is powered and recharged from hydro electric power derived from Lake Victoria and dams on The Nile River. Uganda is 95% supplied from Hydro Electric generation.

@@stevejagger8602 So there you have your answer regarding how to power energy hungry facilities in the future. A solar array around 550km by 550km would be enough to produce as much energy as is consumed on the entire planet today. Increase that tenfold and we have an order of magnitude more power than we've ever had before in human history. Power for desalination, sewage treatment, and irrigation. Power for hydrogen production, for metal smelting, cement production, carbon sequestration... The future isn't going to be a time of compromise and scaling back but a time of energy availability on a scale we've never seen before. Logistics and infrastructure is going to be the issue we need to tackle, not enforcing a blanket austerity on people. That's why the roadblocks to the DC power lines across Germany being mentioned is the most infuriating part of the video. And as for the Solar System, the Sun wastes 2.26 billion times more energy into deep space than it shines on Earth. Energy we're going to have enough of. Other resources are going to become scarce as we grow into the niche available to us much sooner than energy will.

​@@stevejagger8602 That's fantastic. My 3160 sq. ft. home is powered by an exercycle that is located at my gym downstairs. We are both good.

NO! Its environment CRIME!

Somehow this completely trivial piece of information is very hard to internalize.

Hah, Gaaaaaaasasy

I work in Consents in offshore wind and it’s literally my job to minimise our environmental impact as we build these. We carry out geophysical surveys of the seabed, essentially an X-ray, sometimes with drop down video also, which can tell us a huge amount about the seabed characteristics - where are the reefs, any ship wrecks, the type of sediment (clay, silt, sand), UXOs, boulders etc. We can then reposition the turbines and cables (called micrositing) to reduce the impact we’re having.

The best way to help the underwater world is to stop building offshore wind power plants and get on with building nuclear facilities and researching the best nuclear power technologies

the UK government is building 33GW capacity on the Dogger, the figures for later build estimate a hopeful load factor of 0.63 , current Dogger bank is 0.42 both are over a year. Gridwatch shows the issue with wind and dispatchable power . maintenance costs are expected to drop from 60% of build costs to 10% . thats over a 20year lifetime.

The capacity factor you give is a mean value over the year, but we also have to look at its minimum value. If there is 24/7 wind in the north sea, in only means that the minimum predictivity factor during the year is greater than 0. It is very important to look at both the mean and the minimum value. The mean will give you the reductuon in fossil fuel consumption that we can expect, so the result for the climate. The minimum value will get you the amount of fossil fuel plants that we can shut down to lower the costs of clean energy production (indeed with a minimum capacity factor of 0 when there is no wind or sun, you have to keep almost the same amount of fossil fuel plants so that everybody gets electricity).

@@the_forbinproject2777 Offshore wind will be a large part of the energy future of the UK and Europe and will hopefully be cheap once the infrastructure is in place If it costs £46/MWh for this cycle Hopefully in 25 years time they can reuse the foundation the tower the cables the onshore and offshore converters etc perhaps the next cycle might only be £25/MWh since more than half the infrastructure will live beyond 25 years

@@kiliandervaux6675 Yes correct at the moment wind and solar allow you to close approximately zero power stations because you need them for the windless days However this isn't a huge problem because CCGT and OCGT power stations are relatively cheap at around £600/KW of capacity So for the UK to build 50GW of gas fired backup would cost £30 billion but they would last over 30 years so just £1 billion a year for the backup or about £3/MWh

@@kiliandervaux6675 I did this simple calc a year ago, I hope it helps 2019 year Grid watch figures for wind delivered. minimum: 0.095 Gw and maximum: 13.855 Gw The highest delivered power of the installed fleet was 13.855 Gw out of 22Gw installed capacity 13.855/22 = 0.6297 or say 63% ( 0.63) this means the peak GW power during any one hour of the year could be current fleet = 13.855 new fleet 33 x 0.63 = 20.79 combined = 34.645 GW delivered And the minimun lull figure is; current fleet = 0.095 new fleet 33 x 0.00432 = 0.143 combined = 0.238 GW delivered new fleet is the planned 33GW of wind farms , also 22GW fleet is averaged 6.22 GW x 8760 hours per year = 54.5 TWh 33GW proposed fleet is ave 13.86 GW x 8760 hours per year = 121.413 Twh combined its = 176 Twh pa (target is 260 Twh) these figures are taken from a report I sent to Boris Johnson . I am not government and he hasn't replied.

NO!!! europe has no reserves of natural gas, germany shut off its nuke plants, and they stopped coal. so now electricity costs are 5 time what they are in the USA. Germany's government screwed them, and you want to talk about some kind of ideological problem

@@davidanalyst671 Most of this is wrong. 1st: Where I live in Germany electricity cost is ~30cts/kWh while the average in the us is 10-11cts. This is not 5 but only 3 times as much, not counting in currency differences. Also, most of Germanys electricity costs are taxes and grid fees. Homemade solar power comes in at 5 to 15 cts/kWh over 20 years, depending on various factors. And after this time solar panels continue producing power for free. 2nd: Germany hasn't shut off all nuclear power plants yet. 6 of them still exist. The last one will go offline in 2022. This is due to their bad variability in power output and their bad reputation due to incidents as in Tschernobyl or Fukushima. Also we just don't know where to dispose of the nuclear waste because the stuff is radioactive for far longer that humans can imagine. There is still no solution to nuclear waste storage in Germany, also because Germany is densly populated. 3rd: Germany is far from stopping coal plants. At the moment coal exit is planned to bin in 2038... The only thing we could agree on is about the government screwing Germany.. Not for "idealogical" reasons as you say but for knowing better (e.g. scientific research) and not acting accordingly.

@@ando3807 "only" 3 times as much. If they really cared about the environment, they would absorb the cost, not increase their profits. Nuclear is the best option. But its not talked about because it takes a long time to become PROFITABLE. Thats all this is about. Period.

@@CUSTARDP00DLETK I had to say "only" in response to the false claim of the cost per kWh beeing 5 times as high. 3 times is still much. I looked it up again, and close to 75% of our 30cts/kWh are in fact taxes and grid fees. The cost of extracting energy - either from the environment or fossils/fissiles - is very comparable. Of course this is much, but if Germans really wanted to change that, they can only vote against it or prosume their own solar energy. But, of course that last option is not for everyone... Also, average electricity consumption in the US is 3 times higher, that basically evens out total electricity costs, even with our prices. I suspect that this high consumption is due to space-cooling which is way less of a thing here in Germany. It just doesn't get that hot and humid. For space cooling at least solar energy is best suited as you actually need the power when the sun shines and heats your home.. While there really is a big lobby for fossil power also here in Germany to secure their profits, I have to disagree that "absorbing the costs" generally is a good idea. But of course renewables have to be able to compete. Changing to renewables won't work if only rich people can afford it. Regarding nuclear power in Germany: As I said before Germany is densly populated. After Chernobyl some regions were affected by the fallout. This is one reason why nuclear power is very unpopular here. Also, not only - as you said - do nuclear reactors need to run a long time to be profitable but they also take a very long time to build. And then again there is the problem of disposing of the waste that needs to be shut of the rest of the environmant for millions of years. Again, Germany is densly populated so nobody wants to have the stuff need them. And other countries don't want our waste either. Costs of disposing nuclear waste are generally NOT factored in, but would need to be considered for as long as the stuff "radiates". Which is a very, very long time. So I can't agree on your claim that nuclear is the best option, as to "that beeing all about it. period" since circumstances across the world are different and can also change as time goes on - one way or another.

@@davidanalyst671 Energy storage is a technology, engineering, and logistics problem, not an ideological problem.

@jonathaneffemey944 Thanks for watching!

They do not erode during their livetimes.

@@mAx-grassfed because when they erode you end their lifetime :D :D :D

@@lamichka :D Their lifetime is about 20 years. The blades last longer

Since we don't have the batteries, making hydrogen is what they should be doing when wind and solar have excess production, like in this video and in CA.

Last video I watched said windfarms off the U.S. East Coast can supply lots of electricity in the evening when it's most needed.

@@sandal_thong8631 Yeah but is that supply gonna last the entire night up until the next day? If not why would we convert to it. We need to be able to have a 24/7 electric supply for it to be considered efficient. We need to be able to use that stored power anytime of the day.

@@crimsonreaper7945 Germany is going to have to bite the bullet and start spending big on battery farms if they want Wind/Solar to become stable power sources. I'm looking forward to when they actually do this -- then the world will truly know the great things that Germany has done for the climate.

Think average life is 10-15 years , we need to push these to 50 plus years

Concrete, steel, and fiberglass? I don't think we're going to run out anytime soon.

You missed the point the noise makes them leave and just because construction has stopped doesn't mean the fish can't hear the wind turbines they hit 110 db thats just as loud if not a little louder then a plane taking off. Oh jump in a public pool and stay under for a moment and let me now how loud the people are compared to out of the water you'll be surprised.

@@thesilentone4024 that's right... But then why there's an increase in sea life around these turbines?

@@deepakkashyaprajput8515 there there for the food like he said the only things setting up shop are the mussels which don't normally swim and he also said they don't know the impact of this its not studied very well.

Ecological sistems are very delicate and they change very slowly through millions of years. Changing the ecosystem this way from day to night will inevitably create all sorts of unpredictable problems.

@@capivara6094 The surface area of turbines is TINY, meanwhile fossil fuels are killing us and the planet.

Maybe they piss off the edge

@@gIozell1 What about taking a dump?

Climate change is a scam

@@christoes4598 I am sure you have the scientific evidence to counter what thousands of peer reviewed studies have demonstrated in the last 25 years. Please, try to publish it so that we can learn from your impressive brain.

@@oscare.quiros6349 “scientists “ will write anything that the people that pay them want them to write. It’s all a scam.

@@christoes4598 Sorry but that is not how science research and publications work. Please inform yourself before making incorrect comments.

@@oscare.quiros6349 “climate change “ is a scam .

The hydrogen must be transported, too, though. And there's a massive efficiency loss from the electrolysis and the reuse in fuel cells. Combustion is even less efficient. You can make fertilizer production carbon neutral using green hydrogen, but it's still much more expensive than steam reformed natural gas or coal, so that only works with subsidies. You can start developing technology using hydrogen instead of coke for steel and cement production, which would really make an impact on greenhouse gas reduction. The best way to use the energy is really to have a grid large enough to transport the electricity hundreds of kilometers across the continent to wherever it is needed, though.

I'm for nuclear power if you will store the waste in your backyard.

Nuclear will eventually hit a limit though, they need to be build on land.

@@jazzypoo7960 YOU ARE IGNORANT. READ ABOUT IT BEFORE SPEAKING. All nuclear waste would fill a football stadium 3m deep. They are putted inside a shell that not even a direct hit by train can destroy it. They are then putted 450 meters deep in a bunker. Did you know you there is free uranium in nature at some depth ? It's not refined but it's not shelled...is anyone dying ? Fukushima only killed 2 persons. Chernobyl had no protection to easly remove plutonium to make boms and it exploded because they tested it beyond the known limits (that were hidden from scientists).

@@jazzypoo7960 "store the waste in your backyard" Sure, why not. A dry cask storage is completely safe. If I would have enough money, I would even order a BWRX-300 or a NuScale reactor in my backyard. The more you know about the technology, the less scary it is.

@@solutionrebellion Since storing nuclear waste in "a dry cask storage" is a *human construct,* the radiation will kill you. Albert Einstein admitted that most of his hypotheses were wrong -- and "safe, nuclear power" doesn't exist today.

About 3-4 months

@@jaredgarbo3679 ahahahah ... no. It about 10 years of continuous generating at full potential. Solar is about 20 .

no because thats all just a bunch of greenie bullcrap

@@lamichka i think you are mistaking cost with energy. The cost to build it will be reached in 10 years, but the energy in about 5 months. And over its lifetime a windmill will produce about 20-25 times the energy, that was needed to produce it.

@@lamichka source?

Big oil is not threatened by renewables. It's threatened by nuclear power.

Yes. Why don't we kill the whole nature in Germany for climate neutrality. We can countdown all the forests too and place more wind turbines. There is for sure enough place in Russia for animals. Nice takes from the ecological faction.

I don't think Big oil wants just environmentally unfriendly solutions, but those, which will most likely succeed, but also have a huge potential to monetize.

@@jbk0 its because they can earn more money if they invest into green energy than disgusting energy

I get what you are implying

No, this is a bad sign. This shows the limits of wind energy: it needs backup when there is no wind, and this is usually gas, petrol or coal. They know they can get a lot of money not only with the wind turbine that are outrageousely subsidised by governement, but also by selling more gas. Wind energy is not future, and it will definitely not solve climate change.

@@JCdu7426 didn't you watch the video? It told the reason why turbines at that location are usually seen as a better solution, they keep on producing energy for almost ever

They insulate the cables.

They bury the wires under the ocean floor. Which requires ripping up the ocean floor and disturbing everything from 25 miles out in the ocean to the land. Very selfish thing to do considering how little humans will actually benefit from this messy idea. The ocean was really the one place humans couldn’t build on really and now the whole world is in a competition to see who can build the biggest offshore wind farm.

Renewables generate cheaper electricity, and if it's irony it's the consumer that's the victim of the irony; capitalism operates like a parasite, you'll note that Big Fossil did every possible thing to stop the switch to renewables over the last 60 years since they confirmed that the Fossil industry was the main cause of anthropogenic climate change

Yeah, just going with one route is stupid, but looking at a lot of the comments here shows how much stupidity there is. There will never be just one power source that is the "solution" to worlds hunger for electricity and there shouldn't.

Subsidies are what keeps all power costs low in Germany. Do you know how unprofitable coal is?

You're exactly right. Without grid scale electrical energy storage, wind cannot exceed ~20% of total production, without causing instability of the grid.

@@vincentrobinette1507 @tony crisci the higher the tower and the larger the blades, the more energy relative to the name plate. Also relatively much more than ON because the Sea is always more windy. You can not replace a 1.200 MW coal plant with 100x 12MW "rated" Wind turbines. but you won't have to, because you can build maybe 1800 MW rated plus a bit of storage for the same price, and OF still has a way to go down in price. so might get even better. I am actually quite jealous here in Europe. as the biggest and baddest and newest Turbines will first be installed in the US East Coast, before we see them here.

They don't look bad I don't get why people get hot and bothered about them.

@@vincentrobinette1507 What's probably going to happen is that you build out enough wind and solar to provide you with enough energy even on bad days, meaning you have a large surplus on good days. That's going to create all sorts of demand for facilities using the intermittent power surplus somehow. But then those facilities will want to have enough power to run most of the time, meaning the renewable energy is going to be built out even more, providing even more surplus power. And that's going to escalate until by the end of this century we'll have so much power it's going to make the 20th century look like the 14th. We'll be able to desalinate water on a large scale, pump it uphill far inland, grow food indoors, run heating and A/C to our heart's delight. It's going to make today's infrastructure look like what the age of the steam locomotive looks to us today.

No, they're fine.

@@ThePlayerOfGames oh really? How do you know?

Is why we have to work harder to overcome then;

Nuclear >

Hi Nikola, thank you for you question. We refer to Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems' study you can find here: www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity.html. 🦾

Population growth really isn't a concern any more is my only critique.

@@NAUM1 Human population increase is our most pressing concern. Reducing humans footprint on the planet can only be achieved by a drastic reduction in the number of humans on this world.

We do, it just got its limitations, like any other grid. If your plan is to build 35GW of capacity off the shores but you can only move 5GW through the grid to the south, that's completely insufficient. Most grids have their historical roots in a wide-spread production network with each region, city and town having their own power plants - this of course changes with offshore wind. In the UK you have similar questions e.g. as to how you'd get your scottish wind energy to England - SEGL1 and SEGL2 are suggested solutions to this. Though of course you have the benefit of never being to far from the shores.

@@lejac4916 ah, I see. Thanks

@@hannahcallow6374 The problem is the capacity of transformers. They can only take so much electricity through them.

As far as I know, they're way less efficient. Can you tell me where you heard of it?

konnyfu is right... they are a LOT less efficient. The number of bird deaths is also heavily overstated. If you were really interested in saving birds you should ; Knock down skyscrapers, make lorries drive very slowly and neuter all cats. Then we can talk about wind turbines....

I agree completely with your comment, we need to have energy storage and other forms on generation such as SMR’s as part of the mix. I have solar panels on my roof with batteries, the batteries provide the electricity I need for hot water and overnight requirements and avoid sending too much electricity back to the grid.

People are always trying to sell a certain technology as thr miracle solution, so I'm happy about your comment.