Offshore Wind Can Supply All The World’s Power–Claims Daily Mail
By Paul Homewood
h/t AC Osborn
Another hopelessly over the top headline in the Mail:
Installing wind turbines at the world’s best offshore sites would provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demands, a study has found.
Offshore wind farms could become a cornerstone of the world’s power supply, researchers at the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported.
The potential of the green energy source is being unlocked by new wind turbine technology and increasing reductions in setup and operating costs, they added.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewables will be crucial to meet the globally-agreed goal of limiting the average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius this century.
Power generated from wind turbines at sea only accounts for 0.3 per cent of global electricity generation today, said the IEA in what it called ‘the most comprehensive’ study of offshore wind to date.
However, based on current and proposed policies, offshore wind capacity is set to increase 15-fold over the next two decades.
This will turning wind into a $1 trillion business, the IEA said.
In fact, the IEA report, which is here, says nothing of the sort. It merely states that it would be theoretically possible to build enough offshore wind turbines to supply all of the world’s power, but nothing about the practicalities of doing so.
They might just as well have said that nuclear power could do the same.
What the IEA do say, and which the Mail does mention further down, is that offshore wind capacity will increase 15-fold in the next two decades.
Given that it only accounts for 0.3% of global generation, this would increase its share to a still tiny 4.5%. And that assumes that total demand does not increase, which is highly unlikely.
Somehow I don’t see it saving the world!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“They might just as well have said that nuclear power could do the same.”
Nuclear Small Modular Reactors could supply all global leccy requirements if it were not for the OTT ionising radiation regulations.
Once again… these people don’t seem to understand that “cutting greenhouse emissions” does not take CO2 out of the atmosphere…it means we can’t use it.
“Replacing fossil fuels with renewables will be crucial to meet the globally-agreed goal of limiting the average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius this century.”
Nor do “renewables”. Biofuels (90% fossil) even add to the amount in the atmosphere unless quickly compensated for by growing and producing new sources of ethanol to keep the cycle intact. The other renewables, if not replaceable as they get old and less efficient, will be required to remove and store the necessary billions of tons needed to make a difference to the climate. That’s a huge amount to agree on. Do the math on 65 ppm to reach 350 ppm.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Ian Randall appears to have flunked reading comprehension.
Do writers only have to copy and paste a set number of words?
See his take on teabags…
Most peculiar that the Green Blob and the supportive MSM and politicians say things like that having forgotten that, perhaps only minutes earlier, they have been predicting massive sea level rise and a colossal increase in storms, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and the like.
Hmmmnnnn …….
Whatever number of off shore wind turbines they put up, the energy produced is not dispatch able. Any part of the Globe that may receive off shore wind farms will also have either too strong or little/no wind on and off. So we need colossal capacity inter-connectors with associated distance losses. Another expensive and impractical proposition.
Ten years-ago Xi Lu, Michael B. McElroy, and Juha Kiviluoma put out a paper claiming on-and-off shore wind could supply “>40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity” and “>5 times total global use of energy in all forms” but didn’t consider the energy expended in manufacturing, constructing, maintaining, replacing turbines and the corresponding necessary storage:
Click to access shaka-eroi.pdf
Daily Fail. Lucky they get the date correct.
“Installing wind turbines at the world’s best offshore sites would provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demands, a study has found”
In that case this energy technology should be able to compete in the market for energy based purely on its advantages and without the need for fear based activism against fossil fuels.
Who could have thought this would happen in this war on energy independence?
Oct 22, 2019 Production Up, Emissions Down
Wouldn’t it be great if we gave ourselves credit for doing amazing things that weren’t sports-related? The United States is the gold medal champ in oil and natural gas production.
offshore wind capacity is set to increase 15-fold over the next two decades
Good luck recycling that lot when they expire. The millions of tons of concrete bases will be abandoned.
Not forgetting that there is no current way to recycle the massive composite blades, and disposing of them is going to become a major headache in the coming years…
Oldbrew, leaving shipping and other hapless mariners to trip over them and then require CO2 intensive repairs to their craft?
I wonder how those folks in Oklahoma or the middle of Australia will feel about this? That’s a long extension cord.
Indeed. Not forgetting 100 million landlocked Ethiopians and a lot of other places too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlocked_country#List_of_landlocked_countries_and_territories
Reading the cooments on this and other stories I’m depressed by the number of people who think that a turning windmill is producing maximum output. When in conversation with like minded people it’s almost impossible to convince them that a strong wind of about 25mph continuously blowing is required because that’s the specifications and they follow the wind closely in output., there’s no inertia. Nor do they understand that windspeed over the sea isn’t that different from overland, and is probably not as good as the wind at the top of an escarpment.. The only numbers I’ve seen had a mean wind speed of nearly 10m/s at 15m on the shore line. This implies a lot of hours where wind speed is lower.
It doesn’t matter how many turbines there are if there’s no wind (<3m/s) there's no electricity.
that the windmills don’t work 3/4 of the time is a thing that seems to escape the boosters. It’s what smart meters were made for – let ’em have it.
Load factors for wind turbines – what they actually produce compared to their maximum capacity of 100 percent – are about 24%/25% for onshore and circa 35% to 45% for offshore. However, the capacity factor falls with age so, for example, an offshore turbine could reduce from 40% LF to 30% in five years.
There are quite a few studies about this and the rate of decline varies from study to study. There is also doubt about the assumed LF when the turbine is new and the BEIS (I think) has quoted LF at 52% when new which seems far too high and the drop in the LF is too low.
An analogy is the good old MPG which motor manufacturers claim but which are far higher than reality (the same applies to range for fully charged electric cars).
Is anyone aware of independent audits of capacity factors for the UK and elsewhere like Denmark?
Another question, is the Load Factor what the turbine produces and what is actually used by the National Grid and becomes electricity used by consumers?
I seem to have lost the post I just made. Are they moderated before appearing?
They sometimes take a little while to appear. I know not if it is ‘moderation’ that causes the short delay.
It’s come through now
Radical enviros are fond of stating how every little thing mankind does disrupts the natural order and plays havoc with the planet. I wonder, has anyone ever thought about what happens when hundreds/thousands of wind turbines are erected and disrupt the natural airflow patterns?
Yes, people have investigated this idea.
Very close to towers there are effects. That’s why they place them far apart, and not downwind from one another.
The effect is very tiny relative to the atmosphere.
The Troposphere is abou 17 km thick in the mid-latitudes. The tallest wind towers are less than 250 m. (2017; link below).
Earth has developed its own tall towers that extract energy from the wind. Think of tall trees, a few over 100 m., but most much shorter.
See the image at the top of this:
There are 4 towers in this project.
Count the green things in the photo – side to side and front to back.
Guess at the number of trees removed to have space for the towers, and the connecting roads.
The photo only hints at the 17 km thick Troposphere.
“Very close to towers there are effects”
Indeed there are:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vattenfall/4270899001
I’m not sure that they do endangered raptor species any good either.
O/T
BBC’s 7 worlds 1 planet. DA prostituting himself again.
Ever trial every creature has to endure in Antarctica is down to ‘climate change’.
The program is beyond ridicule, could it go 2 minutes without a mention – no!
Every section takes the same tactic, build us up with the wonder and beauty of the fluffy creature, then wade in with the ‘you evil people killed it with climate change’ BS claims.
DA claimed the population of birds had declined by 50% in 15 (? may have said 50 years).
Climate change made storms more frequent and winds stronger DA said, blowing the cute fluffy chicks off their nests, where thick parents failed to recognize them and save them.
This is a lie of Walrus proportions.
One minute on Google – the problem is the success of other predatory species and industrial Japanese fishing (drowning/bycatch of the young birds).
https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/nobody-knows-where-juvenile-grey-headed-albatrosses-go-until-now
And predictably I wake up to R5Live replaying DA’s pitiful voice and his fictional narrative of the suffering albatross chick.
Then the female radio presenter states albatross numbers have halved in 15 years because of climate change.
BBC pants on fire.
Albatross live about 35 years. If they couldn’t raise a couple of chicks successfully in 30 years, in spite of supposed climate change, any rational person would conclude that there must be a much bigger factor(s) at play (if population is genuinely in decline and it’s not just the cyclic boom and bust typical of many avian populations).
The Daily Mail reviewer is apparently oblivious to the classic brain washing technique of appealing to the emotions (as used by ISIS – cute children, show them blown them to bits, blame the West) and he is easily duped. Stevens even convinces himself that there can be no other explanation and we are not being preached to!
However, comments indicate that the less gullible find the blatant propaganda a stomach churning turn off that ruins the program.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7619651/CHRISTOPHER-STEVENS-reviews-David-Attenboroughs-Seven-Worlds-One-Planet.html
Have you seen this very good summary of why intermittent sources are worthless:
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Renewable-Energys-Inconvenient-Truth.html
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
“Offshore Wind Can Supply All The World’s Power-…”
Yeah. As long as the world isn’t particular about when or how much they get.
OTT.
After a slow start, the Arctic Ocean is refreezing rapidly:
Don’t worry. If the ice freezes too fast, they’ll adjust the way they model it in order to bring it in line. They’ve done it before…
NTZ posted on it.
https://notrickszone.com/2016/02/12/arctic-sea-ice-trend-may-have-turned-the-corner-as-ice-volume-picks-up-over-past-5-years/
Note that if it weren’t for Japanese blogger, Kirye, the inconvenient graph would have disappeared.
I’m not certain, but I suspect that even though DMI have changed the way they estimate sea ice, they haven’t updated past sea ice extent for consistency. Could be innocent, but with the rampant climate data trickery, I can’t help but be suspicious.
My chart was taken from Arctic Regional Observation System which is a collaboration between nine countries.
NSIDC is also a good source:
https://nsidc.org/data/masie/
As long as we have RIVAL providers of data, the fiddling cannot be too extreme.
The IEA “Renewables 2019” report probably deserves its own blog post.