Oxford scientist, "Wind power fails..."

[Crick]

So what?

Are we utterly incapable of building them?

Oak Ridge had one years

One powered the US's second nuclear sub, USS Seawolf (SSN 575).

 

[Crick]

The scientist calculated that, at 100 percent efficiency, if the wind blows at 10 meters per second (about 22 mph), the power is 600 watts per square meter. Hence, to deliver 3,200 million watts, the same output as Hinkley Point C—a planned zero-carbon nuclear power station in England—there would need to be 5.5 million square meters of turbine swept area.

The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2
To sweep 5.5 million square meters would then require 5,500,000 / 38.013 or 145 turbines.
On a rated power capacity basis (20 MW/turbine) it would actually require 160 turbines.

 

[Crick]

The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2
To sweep 5.5 million square meters would then require 5,500,000 / 38.013 or 145 turbines.
On a rated power capacity basis (20 MW/turbine) it would actually require 160 turbines.

I support nuclear power so I would probably prefer that to the turbines if this plant can be brought online in a satisfactory amount of time.

 

[jc456]

What? I asked a question.

I answered

 

[Crick]

so you admit one loses funding for being honest huh?

What White6 said does not equate to what you have asked. So, his answer should be "No, I do not".

 

[jc456]

What White6 said does not equate to what you have asked. So, his answer should be "No, I do not".

So you think you speak for me you condescending prick?

Answer my question about funding

 

[okfine]

I answered

 

[jc456]

View attachment 772401

Cut your losses, good idea. I will continue to comment however on yours.

 

[Donald H]

You don't understand munchkin and when you act like a pompous little prick, nobody wants to be bothered explaining anything to you.

No, wind and solar are the whole answer and neither are EV's.

Fwiw, I meant to say aren't.

 

[Crick]

So you think you speak for me you condescending prick?

Answer my question about funding

Speak for you? I was speaking for him. What was your question about funding? Are you getting a little tight. The market has not been kind the last year or so. They miss Donny boy.

PS, it's not condescension if it's actually required.

 

[jc456]

Speak for you? I was speaking for him. What was your question about funding? Are you getting a little tight. The market has not been kind the last year or so. They miss Donny boy.

PS, it's not condescension if it's actually required.

So you jumped in blind

 

[Crick]

So you jumped in blind

This is a test, it is only a test. If this were a real post you would have been alerted to applaud wildly.

 

[jc456]

This is a test, it is only a test. If this were a real post you would have been alerted to applaud wildly.

to which you failed badly, thank you for participating.

 

[Crick]

to which you failed badly, thank you for participating.

When I saw the NA there, I thought perhaps you'd been booted for your incessant trolling.

 

[jc456]

The average offshore wind turbine diameter at present is 220 meters. It sweeps an area of Pi * 110m^2 or 38,013 m^2
To sweep 5.5 million square meters would then require 5,500,000 / 38.013 or 145 turbines.
On a rated power capacity basis (20 MW/turbine) it would actually require 160 turbines.

all unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

all unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.

Ask him about dispatchable power.

 

[jc456]

Ask him about dispatchable power.

I've been waiting since you asked him.

 

[Crick]

I've been waiting since you asked him.

Todd already explained it to me.

 

[Crick]

all unreliable since they aren't a 7x24x365 system. ooops.

That says nothing about my argument. It (the number of wind turbines required) was presented as an unreachable goal, when, in fact, it is quite reachable, though I stated that if a lot of permitting and prep work was done, I'd go with the nuke plant. I have no objection to modern nuclear power plants

 

[jc456]

That says nothing about my argument. It (the number of wind turbines required) was presented as an unreachable goal, when, in fact, it is quite reachable, though I stated that if a lot of permitting and prep work was done, I'd go with the nuke plant. I have no objection to modern nuclear power plants

Are they dependable 7x24x365? You just puked