If you want my opinion, you should be investing in nuclear power.
As a photography enthusiast, you should see how wind turbines wreck pristine natural areas and landscapes.
Wind and solar cannot deliver base load power. They are token symbols only. Just exactly how many wind turbines would they need to deliver base load power?
You'll see these issues crop up with Germany, because of that, they don't really have anything to replace nuclear power with. Unless it's back to fossil fuel, like coal, which is stupid, because not only can nuclear provide base load power, it also is clean, and saves lives (unlike coal power).
Yet they want to build 26 new coal plants (iirc). Wind and solar is meaningless, especially when they planning to transition back to coal.
Germany import more electricity than they produce themselves already. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.
In 2010 they produced 1528 TWh (vs 3807 TWh of consumption iirc), in 2010, Wind Power produced in Germany was a piddling 37.793 TWh.
I've been stating for years, that wind power is a dead end. Wind power is not free energy, it comes from kinetic energy from the movement of air in the atmosphere. What exactly, is movement of air in the atmosphere responsible for?
The Hallett Wind Farm allegedly produces 0.165 TWh, the land area required is 18.64km^2
So if we can assume about ~113 km^2 per TWh produced. The required land area to satisfy Germany's energy consumption in 2010, is more land area then the entire country (120% of their land area).
And obviously not every area is a good area (as not every area is going to be windy enough), plus if you just have a massive cluster like that, the turbines surrounded by other turbines won't be nearly as effective. Plus what will happen to the weather?
Last edited by Athiril; 08-12-2013 at 12:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.