SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In an analysis of all suitable sites for onshore wind farms, the new study reveals that Europe has the potential to supply enough energy for the whole world until 2050. The study reveals that if all of Europe's capacity for onshore wind farms was realised, the installed nameplate capacity would 52.5 TW -- equivalent to 1 MW for every 16 European citizens.
Co-author Benjamin Sovacool, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Sussex, said: "The study is not a blueprint for development but a guide for policymakers indicating the potential of how much more can be done and where the prime opportunities exist.
"Our study suggests that the horizon is bright for the onshore wind sector and that European aspirations for a 100% renewable energy grid are within our collective grasp technologically.
"Obviously, we are not saying that we should install turbines in all the identified sites but the study does show the huge wind power potential right across Europe which needs to be harnessed if we're to avert a climate catastrophe."
Spatial analysis of Geographical Information System (GIS)-based wind atlases allowed the research team to identify around 46% of Europe's territory which would be suitable for siting of onshore wind farms.
The advanced GIS data at sub-national levels provided a far more detailed insight and allowed the team to factor in a far greater range of exclusionary factors including houses, roads, restricted areas due to military or political reasons as well as terrains not suitable for wind power generation.
The greater detail in this approach allowed the research team to identify more than three times the onshore wind potential in Europe than previous studies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:56PM (1 child)
Later in the thread, you wrote:
That's not even remotely accurate on several levels. First, the big one is that marginal power generation costs overwhelm the one time costs of construction. A power source that burns fossil fuels is going to generate vastly more CO2 over its lifetime than one that doesn't even counting the costs of construction and other initial inputs. A power source that requires the mass input that a fossil fuel generator would require, will have a significant ongoing carbon footprint just from those logistics.
Second, dollars aren't a rough equivalent to carbon emission which in turn is not a rough equivalent for energy usage. Third, you're not comparing like to like. If you're going to count the carbon footprint of wind power installations, you need to do the same for fossil fuel generator installations, which is going to include a fair bit of "Concrete for the foundations, fabrication and shipping of all the parts, whether carbon fiber + epoxy resin, steel, or other metals or plastics."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 16 2019, @03:09PM
One thing that wind power lacks is economy of scale. Even a massive turbine is a tiny fraction of the output of an average sized fossil fuel generation station. They also seem, by past performance, to not have the greatest lifespans, so that cost of construction needs to be multiplied many times (and a few more times to account for inefficiencies of generator placement, power storage, etc.), and multiplied again to account for shorter overall life.
Yes, if we're all on wind power, then it's all "clean" energy, but the cost of that energy can't be compared by looking at megawatts of generator output alone.
🌻🌻 [google.com]