Discussion on:

Germany's $263B renewable energy experiment

The capacity factor of wind turbines is so pathetic that their environmental impact, in terms of the steel, concrete and rare-earth elements used, is massive. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

When does common sense displace the tortuous manoeuvres and intertwined cost calculations of those advocating renewable energy as the solution to the worlds clean energy needs. In one or two decades sustainable breeder reactors will relegate renewables to their low, single figure percentage of energy generation - where they belong. Let's hope those who have to accept that renewables are not the answer, will support Molten Salt Breeder Reactors and not Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors. They will have to opt out of the debate altogether or support one or other of the breeder reactor types.

The EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) for wind is far higher the nukes. Solar is also higher than coal, gas and nuclear. See http://oco-carbon.com/2010/05/19/eroei-of-electricity-generation/

Molten salt / fast breeder nukes do not exist which is why no one is building them.

Note: global renewable energy share increased 32% last year. Nuclear power declined 6%. Source IEA.

What about Professor Per Peterson's efforts? You do know it will be wall to wall breeder reactors soon, don't you? Nuclear - 3.35 tonnes. Wind - 680 tonnes. Now what is the Ratio???

I can't understand how one wind turbine could "take up 247 acres"? Are you saying that each of these windmills are actually 1.5 times the size of the Pentagon?? Even if you meant to say that the turbines would be placed every 247 acres (which at least is physically plausible), this still makes no sense... why would they be placed that far apart? They wouldn't.

I think you got your numbers wrong, and meant to say that the 5000 turbines would reside on a TOTAL of 247 SQUARE acres, which works out to a roomy 2152 sq. ft per turbine (247 acres=10.7 million sq. feet, divided by 5000= 2152).

Could you clarify this please?

I'd be happy to clarify. I didn't mean to imply the offshore turbines actually take up 247 acres. Poor word choice on my end. The offshore turbines are often bigger than onshore turbines. But not that large.

However, according to the report each turbine will reside on an average of 247 acres. Combined, their footprint would cover 1,931 square miles (5,000 square kilometers).

A Wind Energy Update report last year noted that spacing between offshore turbines is critical. If they're spaced too closely together, the wake effect reduces their performance.

Of course, it all depends on the size of turbine etc. Cape Wind project, for example, will space its turbines in the Horseshoe Shoal will be 0.34 nautical miles apart (or 0.39 miles).

That makes more sense. I'm no expert on the subject, it just surprises me that each turbine needs to be spaced that far apart to avoid a wake effect. I'm sure that, if completed, it will be an awesome sight to see; such grand scale!

I suppose the only bummer about the spacing is the tremendous amount of wires/cables involved.

One turbine would take up some 247 acres. Altogether, their footprint would cover 1,931 square miles...

This is nonsense. The footprint of a wind turbine - including access roads, transformers, etc. - is about 1% of the total area of a wind farm. The land can still be farmed and wildlife can still live happily around them.

The proposed wind farm in this article is offshore- a.k.a. in the water.

I cant help wondering how many wind turbines farms can be built before they become unsightly. There are other types of renewable energy devices available, and some not even being allowed to be talked about. It is refreshing to here that wind and solar are becoming accepted, as an alternative to nuclear. I hope that green polices are the future, and that Green energy helps the planet breath.

...and with the solar subsidies, one part of the experiment already seems to have gone wrong: one after another company is folding, after the public has invested big time. I am commenting this on my blog, always happy about feedback: http://energyingermany.com/2012/11/10/green-energy-subsidies-uk-should-look-to-germany-for-cautionary-tale/

Cheers

Florian