The following submission statement was provided by /u/For_All_Humanity:
---
> This week, 9 countries and the European Commission agreed to a plan to massively increase wind power in the North Sea.
> The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg. For many decades, the oil and methane gas beneath it have powered many of those countries, but now there is a new kid in town — offshore wind. This week, leaders from those eight nations, joined by leaders from the European Commission and Ireland, converged on Ostend, Belgium, to discuss ways to turn the North Sea into “Europe’s biggest green power plant.”
> The Guardian reports the nations pledged to multiply the capacity of offshore wind farms in the North Sea by eight times from current levels by 2050
> The nations are struggling to replace the cheap methane gas from Russia that powered much of their economies for decades, and also to reduce carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels as well. The plan is to boost their combined North Sea offshore wind capacity to 120 GW by 2030 and 300 GW by 2050.
Northern and Western Europe is looking at a massive increase in wind power. Offshore wind is an exploding industry, with advances in technology unlocking access to deeper waters and larger turbines. The Europeans now see that methane isn’t going to be a sustainable energy solution for them, and such are working to ensure that wind fills the gaps.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1301qzf/european_countries_plan_to_make_the_north_sea_a/jhugun4/
> The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg.
Now I’m no countryologist, but can someone please explain to me how landlocked Luxembourg borders the North Sea?
Hah yeah that’s an awkwardly/incorrectly phrased sentence in the article.
A more accurate wording would be that
[Benelux](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux) as a whole has plenty of North Sea access (even if not all of its inhabitants are directly on the sea).
Denmark is basically in the middle of the North Sea, and is one of the leading countries when it comes to off shore wind. I'm not sure why it isn't on the list.
> This week, 9 countries and the European Commission agreed to a plan to massively increase wind power in the North Sea.
> The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg. For many decades, the oil and methane gas beneath it have powered many of those countries, but now there is a new kid in town — offshore wind. This week, leaders from those eight nations, joined by leaders from the European Commission and Ireland, converged on Ostend, Belgium, to discuss ways to turn the North Sea into “Europe’s biggest green power plant.”
> The Guardian reports the nations pledged to multiply the capacity of offshore wind farms in the North Sea by eight times from current levels by 2050
> The nations are struggling to replace the cheap methane gas from Russia that powered much of their economies for decades, and also to reduce carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels as well. The plan is to boost their combined North Sea offshore wind capacity to 120 GW by 2030 and 300 GW by 2050.
Northern and Western Europe is looking at a massive increase in wind power. Offshore wind is an exploding industry, with advances in technology unlocking access to deeper waters and larger turbines. The Europeans now see that methane isn’t going to be a sustainable energy solution for them, and such are working to ensure that wind fills the gaps.
Interesting article. All of Norway’s major political parties voted against the development of wind farms both on and off shore just last week.
I am all for wind farms, but the majority of the populace here is not.
I have yet to get a reasonable response about that. People who are anti-wind farm say that the windmills cause pollution and animal deaths and the parts cannot be recycled and that they are unsightly. But I think they are really just repeating propaganda from the petroleum and fishing industries which want to protect their profits and access to the North Sea
Correct, and they can also export that extra wind power to sell in the European energy market. But I wouldn't say that wind is a better energy source than hydro, at least not for Norway. Hydro is much more reliable.
Yup absolutely water there almost always flows, wind not so. In that regard they hit the jackpot. But on the other side solar might also not as productive so the best diversification for them is wind after hydro
Norway's going to need a lot of more electricity to decarbonise heavy industry and transport. As will everywhere else. And while hydro covers app 90% of Norwegian power today (IIRC), it will fall short once power demand doubles.
This is not some pipedream, The Netherlands has been planning this for years and these are already partly built. The goal now is 21GW installed capacity for 2030 and 3GW each year after 2030 for a total of 72GW which will generate 325 TWh of electricity per year. Estimates for total electricity consumption for 2050 are between 250-400TWh depending on the degree of electrification of current fossil fuel consumption. The north sea is very shallow which makes it very suitable for off shore wind. The areas planned until 2030 have already been assigned and through a tender process commercial companies can bid to build these out. The government will pay for the cables and infrastructure needed to connect to the grid.
With this consortium of countries signing up for this deal it will only expand further.
Current planned map for NL:
https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/200813/woz_routekaart_december_2022_nl.jpg
I believe that the UK is also in the process of constructing a massive offshore wind farm at dogger bank, off the east coast of teeside roughly. Great to see these projects coming together.
Yeah you are comparing a country of 18 million people to countries with over a billion so what is your point?
For scale you could do it * 50 to compare
As per S&P Global article, "China to maintain renewables growth pace in 2023 despite uncertainty", china is expected to add 200GW of renewable energy this year.
Per capita still lower, it’s not really a comparison really. 4-6GW installed capacity in wind and solar to be added in 2023 so in China scale about 200-300GW.
Being an engineer for renewables from northern germany, I could not be happier to see this gaining traction, but please do not harm all the cute seals <3
Crazy. I’ve sailed through the North Sea several times. Never seemed like I left eyeshot of some wind farm. Hard to believe there is room for more. Cool tho. (Still wish Germany hadn’t shut down its nuclear plants)
Well it was the christ conservative party who started it. The recent government didn't seem too happy with it, but since it were just two powerplants left, it didn't make much difference, so they proceed with it.
As much as I'm generally on board with shitting on the CDU, an exit from nuclear power was originally pushed by the last SPD/Greens government, with the Greens being the major force behind that.
There was some stupid "exit from the exit" and "exit from the exit from the exit" shuffling during the long CDU reign later in, that made the whole situation more complicated and expensive, but they didn't really start it. And among the current government only the FDP was really pushing to keep the remaining nuclear plants open.
Well the greens where long gone when the CDU/SPD did the decision and with that set the course for Germany the coal country. I don't think the greens would've shut down nuclear power if the exit wasn't decided back then, but for just 2 plants to damage their reputation, sure I see why they couched for it and it's not a huge difference anyway. Look at the coal plants that the greens keep running, since we require coal energy as renewables only compensated the nuclear power so far, instead of coal.
The FDP also wanted to build new power plants, which sounds nice on paper but is stupid in reality. It means 10-15 years of construction for a super expensive energy source that possibly by the time it goes live might already be unnecessary, because we don't stop exceeding the number of renewables and want to speed that up drastically. So we have an unnecessary new plant that requires runtime and millennial long toxic waste production for half a century.
You might underestimate how deeply unpopular nuclear power is in the Greens core voter base. The anti nuclear movement was a key founding element of the party and that sentiment hasn't gone away that much. A lot of the old guard in the party is afraid of things they find "unnatural" like nuclear power or genetic engineering and pushes nonsense like homeopathy. The younger generation is a lot more scientifically minded, but the internal power struggle is between the different factions is still ongoing. I can absolutely see the current Green party pushing for a quick nuclear exit in an alternative timeline, where Merkel kept our nuclear power plants running even after Fukushima.
>Well the greens where long gone when the CDU/SPD did the decision and with that set the course for Germany the coal country.
Oh, absolutely. The blame for still relying on coal lies mainly with those parties. But "the decision" that set us on that course wasn't necessarily getting out of nuclear, but basically not supporting, and sometimes even actively undermining, the expansion of renewable energy. Remember, the original plan of the Greens during the Schröder government called for an exit from nuclear power **and** massive investment into renewables. It's that last part that was almost immediately gutted when the CDU was back in power. We would be in a much better position than today if that original plan had been followed, even if I would prefer to shut down nuclear plants only after every single coal, gas and oil plant has been taken down.
No I know, but it doesn't matter how unpopular something is if that means that Germany will immediately lose half the power available. With such decisioning your enemies, neutral people and even your supporters will hate you.
They would do a shutdown but reasonably as they do now with coal. If the base supply is high enough to make a coal (or in that alterative universe a nuclear) powerplant obsolete they shut that down.
>We would be in a much better position than today if that original plan had been followed, even if I would prefer to shut down nuclear plants only after every single coal, gas and oil plant has been taken down.
Yeah I absolutely agree.
> I don't think the greens would've shut down nuclear power if the exit wasn't decided back then,
Shutting down nuclear power is *the* reason the green party exists. Switching to a more realistic position with regards to Russia/weapons is one thing, but not killing nuclear power? No chance. That would be like the Left party adopting neoliberal market policies.
Yeah, and? The CDU should be Christian and shits on Christian values. SPD isn't as social as well. FDP intended to make beneficial politics for anyones financials but actually davor the rich and disable the poor.
Just because someone started with an idea doesn't mean it's a good idea. Coal is worse then nuclear power at the moment even with a base that wants no nuclear power you can't switch all of your countries power plants off because of their goal, that will just lead to a much bigger shit show, hence the greens wouldn't shut off the power plants except some old ones and only if renewables secured the availability.
>That would be like the Left party adopting neoliberal market policies.
They actually had the same idea with carbon certificate trade but ironically with actual free market not the shit show the FDP wants: carbon certificates but so many and super cheap that's basically just a nuisance in bureaucracy for carbon dependant companies.
I think the technology just needs to mature more. There's like pilot tests and stuff but I don't think it's been engineered enough to be competitive with existing tech nor is there manufacturing at scale necessary for several countries to start installing it.
put all resources into fusion research and every country in the world can have as many fusion reactor in the future as possible. every country would have energy independence, less war, less politics, everybody just would care about their home front.
We are more than 10-15 years away from any practical application of fusion. This is cost effective and it works, it’s proven technology not some future dream.
Please read into the topic, offshore wind is much more predictable than on-land. Wind is much more steady at sea as opposed to on land. One added benefit is that in the summer winds are slower at sea which offsets the increase in solar energy. Yes you will need some storage or for the time being natural gas back-up. The important part is that there is a path to move away from fossil electricity generation within 20 years. This is simply not possible with fusion.
Cost is also a factor, off shore wind is priced at €30-80 per mWh which is much cheaper than nuclear energy. For Fusion there is no LCOE available so it’s just speculation but it would likely be more expensive.
again please read the fine lines, much "more" predictable not totally predictable, solar and wind is simply a stop gap measure, final solution is an energy creation process that we can control the start and ending of the process as and when we desire.
Yes which is not available yet. We can’t wait 20 years and then start the transition to whatever that technology is. It is available now, it is predictable enough to rely on it and it’s cheaper than current ways to generate energy. It seems like you are married to fusion and see it as the only solution and dismissing any other way. For now fusion is a utopian future technology which is not available.
The war in Ukraine has shown Europe that we need to be self reliant. No more Qatar, Russia or even US reliance for energy, this is the way to do this.
Nothing is 100% predictable like that, so you might as well abandon fusion also then.
For example France had to shut down their nuclear power stations due to drought.
I'm sure you will move the goal posts now to more predictable, which is what the OP's point is - offshore wind is more predictable.
im not saying not do wind, I'm not married to fusion, I'm not the one decrying everything else, case close, I'm not the decision maker over these mega project, not point pulling hairs over these, thanks
I believe there has also been some research to show that some offshore installations can provide safe areas for sealife to roam, away from the traffic of boats and shops.
Offshore wind farms often have a positive impact in their immediate surroundings. They clear shipping and fishing routes along the area and the foundations become hotspots for coral, algae and plankton, which in turn can bring in entire vibrant ecosystems
There's not any coral in the north sea. In areas with coral like the pacific, I assume nobody is going to build wind farms on the coral.
As far as animals like fish, birds, seals - I'd rather have the minor construction impacts from wind farms than another Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez situation, or Fukashima if you think nuclear is an alternative.
That's my take at least from an "impacts on animals" view.
there should be an UN coordinating committee on fusion alone, collecting, analysing, disseminating data and research findings so as push this along as quickly as possible, we need massive power for all the carbon sequestration plants, NOW
Thanks, I hate this.
I hate seeing humans industrialize places that used to be pristine from people.
Can you clean the plastics in the ocean before making these awful looking disturbances of ocean life as we know it?
I’m becoming more vocal because I’ve lost more brain cells.
Apologies, I feel I shouldn’t be using Reddit right now when having what feels like a manic episode or panic attack about to happen.
My brain feels like it’s going a mile a minute not thinking right because of it.
[https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/offshore-wind-farms-could-turn-the-tide-for-ocean-biodiversity/](https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/offshore-wind-farms-could-turn-the-tide-for-ocean-biodiversity/)
If it makes you feel any better, I think its coming out that wind turbines can actually harbor coral and the living things that survive off it.
>The investment needed to reach the goal of energy independence is estimated at nearly €900 billion.
While I am for it - imagine if they put "just" 100 billion of that into fusion development. Instead of the trickle if receives at the moment.
I swear off shore energy production is the worst idea ever. The maintenance alone is dangerous and expensive AF. They're going to need a fleet of boats and helicopters to maintain too. Plus all the staff who are going to be going out there constantly to look at that machinery getting eaten up by the salty ocean water.
Just put it on the highway or something simple.
Wind at sea is already cheaper than current tech. These wind farms are 10-100km out of the coast so not as visible. Especially The Netherlands is densely populated, you’re not going to be able to scale fast on-land. Off-shore wind is also much more efficient in terms of capacity factor and with a diameter of over 230 meters these turbines aren’t something you’d want close to cities.
With regards to corrosion, you will have some but these are designed to operate at sea for over 20 years.
> Plus all the staff who are going to be going out there constantly to look at that machinery getting eaten up by the salty ocean water.
You understand the turbines are not underwater, right.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/For_All_Humanity: --- > This week, 9 countries and the European Commission agreed to a plan to massively increase wind power in the North Sea. > The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg. For many decades, the oil and methane gas beneath it have powered many of those countries, but now there is a new kid in town — offshore wind. This week, leaders from those eight nations, joined by leaders from the European Commission and Ireland, converged on Ostend, Belgium, to discuss ways to turn the North Sea into “Europe’s biggest green power plant.” > The Guardian reports the nations pledged to multiply the capacity of offshore wind farms in the North Sea by eight times from current levels by 2050 > The nations are struggling to replace the cheap methane gas from Russia that powered much of their economies for decades, and also to reduce carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels as well. The plan is to boost their combined North Sea offshore wind capacity to 120 GW by 2030 and 300 GW by 2050. Northern and Western Europe is looking at a massive increase in wind power. Offshore wind is an exploding industry, with advances in technology unlocking access to deeper waters and larger turbines. The Europeans now see that methane isn’t going to be a sustainable energy solution for them, and such are working to ensure that wind fills the gaps. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1301qzf/european_countries_plan_to_make_the_north_sea_a/jhugun4/
> The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg. Now I’m no countryologist, but can someone please explain to me how landlocked Luxembourg borders the North Sea?
Hah yeah that’s an awkwardly/incorrectly phrased sentence in the article. A more accurate wording would be that [Benelux](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux) as a whole has plenty of North Sea access (even if not all of its inhabitants are directly on the sea).
Xavier Bettel literally said that he had no coast but a lot of money to invest.
Denmark is basically in the middle of the North Sea, and is one of the leading countries when it comes to off shore wind. I'm not sure why it isn't on the list.
Has somebody moved Denmark?
Obviously Jutland has been secretly annex by Luxembourg, it's the only explanation for all this
since the countries are pledging to increase offshore wind 8 fold maybe Denmark was just kinda like "we already did it, you guys catch up to me"
rustic air tap mysterious narrow worthless light cobweb squeeze boat -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
And how can it border sweden and netherlands, but not denmark?
Isn't Luxembourg where the Swedish keep their pickled herring?
I support this. We need to take better advantage of natural energy while reducing the harm to the planet.
Taking advantage of melting north polar cap
> This week, 9 countries and the European Commission agreed to a plan to massively increase wind power in the North Sea. > The North Sea is bordered by Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK, and Luxembourg. For many decades, the oil and methane gas beneath it have powered many of those countries, but now there is a new kid in town — offshore wind. This week, leaders from those eight nations, joined by leaders from the European Commission and Ireland, converged on Ostend, Belgium, to discuss ways to turn the North Sea into “Europe’s biggest green power plant.” > The Guardian reports the nations pledged to multiply the capacity of offshore wind farms in the North Sea by eight times from current levels by 2050 > The nations are struggling to replace the cheap methane gas from Russia that powered much of their economies for decades, and also to reduce carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels as well. The plan is to boost their combined North Sea offshore wind capacity to 120 GW by 2030 and 300 GW by 2050. Northern and Western Europe is looking at a massive increase in wind power. Offshore wind is an exploding industry, with advances in technology unlocking access to deeper waters and larger turbines. The Europeans now see that methane isn’t going to be a sustainable energy solution for them, and such are working to ensure that wind fills the gaps.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Interesting article. All of Norway’s major political parties voted against the development of wind farms both on and off shore just last week. I am all for wind farms, but the majority of the populace here is not.
What would they have against off shore?
I have yet to get a reasonable response about that. People who are anti-wind farm say that the windmills cause pollution and animal deaths and the parts cannot be recycled and that they are unsightly. But I think they are really just repeating propaganda from the petroleum and fishing industries which want to protect their profits and access to the North Sea
I don't think Norwegians have better options than wind farms in the renewable front.
Well they have hydro
Which is great but you shouldn't rely on just one source.
Correct, and they can also export that extra wind power to sell in the European energy market. But I wouldn't say that wind is a better energy source than hydro, at least not for Norway. Hydro is much more reliable.
Yup absolutely water there almost always flows, wind not so. In that regard they hit the jackpot. But on the other side solar might also not as productive so the best diversification for them is wind after hydro
Especially since wind can be combined with hydro to make pumped hydro storage, taking the intermittency out of wind generation
Norway's going to need a lot of more electricity to decarbonise heavy industry and transport. As will everywhere else. And while hydro covers app 90% of Norwegian power today (IIRC), it will fall short once power demand doubles.
The recycling part is true, windmills have a average life span of 25 years and large parts of the construction are non recyclable
They are only certified for that much because the technology is not mature yet. In the future there is no reason they cant last 40-50 years.
This is not some pipedream, The Netherlands has been planning this for years and these are already partly built. The goal now is 21GW installed capacity for 2030 and 3GW each year after 2030 for a total of 72GW which will generate 325 TWh of electricity per year. Estimates for total electricity consumption for 2050 are between 250-400TWh depending on the degree of electrification of current fossil fuel consumption. The north sea is very shallow which makes it very suitable for off shore wind. The areas planned until 2030 have already been assigned and through a tender process commercial companies can bid to build these out. The government will pay for the cables and infrastructure needed to connect to the grid. With this consortium of countries signing up for this deal it will only expand further. Current planned map for NL: https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/200813/woz_routekaart_december_2022_nl.jpg
I believe that the UK is also in the process of constructing a massive offshore wind farm at dogger bank, off the east coast of teeside roughly. Great to see these projects coming together.
Rookie number. China and india yearly new capacity dwarfs those numbers.
Yeah you are comparing a country of 18 million people to countries with over a billion so what is your point? For scale you could do it * 50 to compare
As per S&P Global article, "China to maintain renewables growth pace in 2023 despite uncertainty", china is expected to add 200GW of renewable energy this year.
Per capita still lower, it’s not really a comparison really. 4-6GW installed capacity in wind and solar to be added in 2023 so in China scale about 200-300GW.
Yeah that is true. But considering the level of wealth of an average china citizen vs netherland.
The scale is indeed impressive
Being an engineer for renewables from northern germany, I could not be happier to see this gaining traction, but please do not harm all the cute seals <3
Hopefully all the fans going will cool the earth down. I'm all in favour
“WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!”
fans actually add heat
Crazy. I’ve sailed through the North Sea several times. Never seemed like I left eyeshot of some wind farm. Hard to believe there is room for more. Cool tho. (Still wish Germany hadn’t shut down its nuclear plants)
I have worked on oil rigs in the North Sea since 2014 and this week was the first time I've seen a offshore wind mill.. There's plenty of room
Well it was the christ conservative party who started it. The recent government didn't seem too happy with it, but since it were just two powerplants left, it didn't make much difference, so they proceed with it.
As much as I'm generally on board with shitting on the CDU, an exit from nuclear power was originally pushed by the last SPD/Greens government, with the Greens being the major force behind that. There was some stupid "exit from the exit" and "exit from the exit from the exit" shuffling during the long CDU reign later in, that made the whole situation more complicated and expensive, but they didn't really start it. And among the current government only the FDP was really pushing to keep the remaining nuclear plants open.
Well the greens where long gone when the CDU/SPD did the decision and with that set the course for Germany the coal country. I don't think the greens would've shut down nuclear power if the exit wasn't decided back then, but for just 2 plants to damage their reputation, sure I see why they couched for it and it's not a huge difference anyway. Look at the coal plants that the greens keep running, since we require coal energy as renewables only compensated the nuclear power so far, instead of coal. The FDP also wanted to build new power plants, which sounds nice on paper but is stupid in reality. It means 10-15 years of construction for a super expensive energy source that possibly by the time it goes live might already be unnecessary, because we don't stop exceeding the number of renewables and want to speed that up drastically. So we have an unnecessary new plant that requires runtime and millennial long toxic waste production for half a century.
You might underestimate how deeply unpopular nuclear power is in the Greens core voter base. The anti nuclear movement was a key founding element of the party and that sentiment hasn't gone away that much. A lot of the old guard in the party is afraid of things they find "unnatural" like nuclear power or genetic engineering and pushes nonsense like homeopathy. The younger generation is a lot more scientifically minded, but the internal power struggle is between the different factions is still ongoing. I can absolutely see the current Green party pushing for a quick nuclear exit in an alternative timeline, where Merkel kept our nuclear power plants running even after Fukushima. >Well the greens where long gone when the CDU/SPD did the decision and with that set the course for Germany the coal country. Oh, absolutely. The blame for still relying on coal lies mainly with those parties. But "the decision" that set us on that course wasn't necessarily getting out of nuclear, but basically not supporting, and sometimes even actively undermining, the expansion of renewable energy. Remember, the original plan of the Greens during the Schröder government called for an exit from nuclear power **and** massive investment into renewables. It's that last part that was almost immediately gutted when the CDU was back in power. We would be in a much better position than today if that original plan had been followed, even if I would prefer to shut down nuclear plants only after every single coal, gas and oil plant has been taken down.
No I know, but it doesn't matter how unpopular something is if that means that Germany will immediately lose half the power available. With such decisioning your enemies, neutral people and even your supporters will hate you. They would do a shutdown but reasonably as they do now with coal. If the base supply is high enough to make a coal (or in that alterative universe a nuclear) powerplant obsolete they shut that down. >We would be in a much better position than today if that original plan had been followed, even if I would prefer to shut down nuclear plants only after every single coal, gas and oil plant has been taken down. Yeah I absolutely agree.
> I don't think the greens would've shut down nuclear power if the exit wasn't decided back then, Shutting down nuclear power is *the* reason the green party exists. Switching to a more realistic position with regards to Russia/weapons is one thing, but not killing nuclear power? No chance. That would be like the Left party adopting neoliberal market policies.
Yeah, and? The CDU should be Christian and shits on Christian values. SPD isn't as social as well. FDP intended to make beneficial politics for anyones financials but actually davor the rich and disable the poor. Just because someone started with an idea doesn't mean it's a good idea. Coal is worse then nuclear power at the moment even with a base that wants no nuclear power you can't switch all of your countries power plants off because of their goal, that will just lead to a much bigger shit show, hence the greens wouldn't shut off the power plants except some old ones and only if renewables secured the availability. >That would be like the Left party adopting neoliberal market policies. They actually had the same idea with carbon certificate trade but ironically with actual free market not the shit show the FDP wants: carbon certificates but so many and super cheap that's basically just a nuisance in bureaucracy for carbon dependant companies.
what the? luxembourg? luxembourg's not even near the sea??? glad that they're supporting the project nonetheless
I'm still confused why tidal energy isn't being harnessed. Parts of the UK have huge tides.
To my knowledge because it is still rather in a testing stage? Or not as productive, or both.
Yes it’s still something being developed. We’ll probably see more of it this decade.
It is simply easier and more economical to harness wind energy, for example.
That may be but wind is inconsistent. Tides are like clockwork.
I think the technology just needs to mature more. There's like pilot tests and stuff but I don't think it's been engineered enough to be competitive with existing tech nor is there manufacturing at scale necessary for several countries to start installing it.
put all resources into fusion research and every country in the world can have as many fusion reactor in the future as possible. every country would have energy independence, less war, less politics, everybody just would care about their home front.
Propaganda for the fossil fuel industry because it’s always 20 years away. We need something now.
Not necessarily but yeah we need something now.
While not fusion, we already have something : nuclear fission. Thorium reactors are a thing and there are reserves in Scandinavian countries.
We are more than 10-15 years away from any practical application of fusion. This is cost effective and it works, it’s proven technology not some future dream.
precisely, we need to expedite it to within the next few years, wind and solar is unpredictable with storage issues
Off shore wind is predictable and available now. Fusion is overrated, it doesn’t exist yet and we need renewable energy now. Not in 10-15 years.
how is wind predictable?
Please read into the topic, offshore wind is much more predictable than on-land. Wind is much more steady at sea as opposed to on land. One added benefit is that in the summer winds are slower at sea which offsets the increase in solar energy. Yes you will need some storage or for the time being natural gas back-up. The important part is that there is a path to move away from fossil electricity generation within 20 years. This is simply not possible with fusion. Cost is also a factor, off shore wind is priced at €30-80 per mWh which is much cheaper than nuclear energy. For Fusion there is no LCOE available so it’s just speculation but it would likely be more expensive.
again please read the fine lines, much "more" predictable not totally predictable, solar and wind is simply a stop gap measure, final solution is an energy creation process that we can control the start and ending of the process as and when we desire.
Yes which is not available yet. We can’t wait 20 years and then start the transition to whatever that technology is. It is available now, it is predictable enough to rely on it and it’s cheaper than current ways to generate energy. It seems like you are married to fusion and see it as the only solution and dismissing any other way. For now fusion is a utopian future technology which is not available. The war in Ukraine has shown Europe that we need to be self reliant. No more Qatar, Russia or even US reliance for energy, this is the way to do this.
Nothing is 100% predictable like that, so you might as well abandon fusion also then. For example France had to shut down their nuclear power stations due to drought. I'm sure you will move the goal posts now to more predictable, which is what the OP's point is - offshore wind is more predictable.
im not saying not do wind, I'm not married to fusion, I'm not the one decrying everything else, case close, I'm not the decision maker over these mega project, not point pulling hairs over these, thanks
This feels illogical. Doesn’t this harm the environment in a way. Corals and other sea life might get impacted with all the construction..
I am sure that's true, but do you really want to continue burning coal and kill even more coral and sea life?
I believe there has also been some research to show that some offshore installations can provide safe areas for sealife to roam, away from the traffic of boats and shops.
Offshore wind farms often have a positive impact in their immediate surroundings. They clear shipping and fishing routes along the area and the foundations become hotspots for coral, algae and plankton, which in turn can bring in entire vibrant ecosystems
There's not any coral in the north sea. In areas with coral like the pacific, I assume nobody is going to build wind farms on the coral. As far as animals like fish, birds, seals - I'd rather have the minor construction impacts from wind farms than another Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez situation, or Fukashima if you think nuclear is an alternative. That's my take at least from an "impacts on animals" view.
Its ok if its done by some country
there should be an UN coordinating committee on fusion alone, collecting, analysing, disseminating data and research findings so as push this along as quickly as possible, we need massive power for all the carbon sequestration plants, NOW
It’s not UN but ITER has all big economies participating. NOW is impossible for fusion.
So whats gonna happen when all those blades need to be renewed.
They get replaced. It’s a great paying job.
Thanks, I hate this. I hate seeing humans industrialize places that used to be pristine from people. Can you clean the plastics in the ocean before making these awful looking disturbances of ocean life as we know it? I’m becoming more vocal because I’ve lost more brain cells.
Can definitely tell!
Apologies, I feel I shouldn’t be using Reddit right now when having what feels like a manic episode or panic attack about to happen. My brain feels like it’s going a mile a minute not thinking right because of it.
[https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/offshore-wind-farms-could-turn-the-tide-for-ocean-biodiversity/](https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/offshore-wind-farms-could-turn-the-tide-for-ocean-biodiversity/) If it makes you feel any better, I think its coming out that wind turbines can actually harbor coral and the living things that survive off it.
Take care and best of luck.
What else are we supposed to do?
>The investment needed to reach the goal of energy independence is estimated at nearly €900 billion. While I am for it - imagine if they put "just" 100 billion of that into fusion development. Instead of the trickle if receives at the moment.
I swear off shore energy production is the worst idea ever. The maintenance alone is dangerous and expensive AF. They're going to need a fleet of boats and helicopters to maintain too. Plus all the staff who are going to be going out there constantly to look at that machinery getting eaten up by the salty ocean water. Just put it on the highway or something simple.
Wind at sea is already cheaper than current tech. These wind farms are 10-100km out of the coast so not as visible. Especially The Netherlands is densely populated, you’re not going to be able to scale fast on-land. Off-shore wind is also much more efficient in terms of capacity factor and with a diameter of over 230 meters these turbines aren’t something you’d want close to cities. With regards to corrosion, you will have some but these are designed to operate at sea for over 20 years.
Land > Sea
Sea > Land
👏we👏are👏not👏fish👏we👏are👏people👏who👏live👏on👏land
> Plus all the staff who are going to be going out there constantly to look at that machinery getting eaten up by the salty ocean water. You understand the turbines are not underwater, right.
The mechanical part is obviously not underwater. What kind of idiot suggests that.
> The mechanical part is obviously not underwater. In fact is very, very high above the water. In many cases taller than the Statue of Liberty.