I wonder why we don’t do this

The entire world could be powered by one deep-sea wind farm stretching across the North Atlantic.

Building a renewable energy project the size of India across the ocean would allow the entire world to get access to sustainable energy and fulfil its needs, according to a major new study.

There are likely to be very significant hurdles to building such a major project, especially one that would require international cooperation and incredible levels of investment. But it would also allow people to get access to vast amounts of energy: at least more efficiently than onshore wind power.

The two researchers found that if a wind farm were built across three million square kilometres of the ocean it would account for roughly the equivalent of all energy used today.

I mean, there must be some reason why we don’t, mustn’t there?

42 comments on “I wonder why we don’t do this

  1. Apart from lack of anchor points less than a couple of miles underwater, hurricanes,and energy transmission and storage technology we haven’t conceived, let alone developed yet? It must be evil fossil fuel industry sabotage that’s holding things up.

  2. This is sounds more like a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation than a ‘major new study’.

    Also: “Power generation from a vast North Atlantic wind farm would be seasonal, with output dropping to a fifth of the annual average during the summer, the scientists pointed out.”

    Whoops. Well, what’s 80% of civilisation between friends.

  3. There are likely to be very significant hurdles to building such a major project, especially one that would require international cooperation and incredible levels of investment.

    When even loony Greens admit it would be fantastically expensive (sorry, “incredible levels of investment”) you know the idea is mad.

  4. Wouldn’t such a large wind farm effect on climate be significant, with unintended consequences, considering the amount of energy it would take out of the earth wind system?

    And to account for the seasonal effect, we would need another one which is not affected at the same time. So the cost just doubled.

  5. This is a perfect project for Murphy’s Green QE. Turn on the printing presses and the “incredible levels of investment” are taken care of.

    All we need now is to solve the technical problems, which, candidly, could be solved easily in a couple of blog posts.

  6. It’s interesting, but not surprising, how they put the international cooperation before and on par with the “incredible” level of investment.

  7. So the cost just doubled.

    And the unions working on it realised they had the entire world at their mercy, and the cost just doubled again and will take twice as long with the just negotiated three day week and 26 weeks holiday.

  8. monoi

    It’s interesting, but not surprising, how they put the international cooperation before and on par with the “incredible” level of investment.

    Translation: The Yanks and Brits pay for it.

  9. OK, let’s say you did this. Took a bit over 100,000 TWh per annum out of the North Atlantic wind system. And add the inefficiencies on top. Inefficiencies in the turbines themselves & also the turbulence induced in the airstream. All coming out as heat. And the resistance heating of a cable network distributing that power around the world being dumped in the N. Atlantic (And add a fair bit to that 100,000 TWh because inefficiencies in the distribution are just as much “world energy use” as anything else.)
    Now you would see some f****g climate change. Either set off the next ice age or completely melt the polar cap. One of the two.

  10. Would this not have a serious effect on global weather patterns? Thus potentially causing significant climate change?

  11. Also: “Power generation from a vast North Atlantic wind farm would be seasonal, with output dropping to a fifth of the annual average during the summer, the scientists pointed out.”

    Then we simply turn the Pacific into a giant pumped storage scheme. It’s only the patriarchal hegemony of science that prevents this.

  12. Green now means the disruption of natural habitat on a vast scale, the destruction of ecosystems and migration routes, and the massacre of species, in this case cetaceans affected by low frequency sound as well as the usual slaughter of seabirds.

  13. Also on that page:

    “Top ten photographs to show anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change”.

    Some photos of nature follows. Er, so what? One is a closeup of dry cracked earth in a ploughed field. Er, so what? In July the fields around me are always like that, it’s called Summer and a few weeks without significant rain.

    Some penguins stood on ice, a bloke in an ice cave, a picture of a power station…what would be the intent of showing someone these pictures?

    “THERE!! See??!! LOOK AT THE FUCKING PENGUINS! DO YOU BELIEVE NOW, INFIDEL?”

  14. Green now means the disruption of natural habitat on a vast scale, the destruction of ecosystems and migration routes, and the massacre of species, in this case cetaceans affected by low frequency sound as well as the usual slaughter of seabirds.

    Not only will their pockets chink with the gold from the “incredible level of investment”, but they’ll have something new to moan about in this ecological destruction (caused by them).

    Win/win for the Greens.

  15. This sort of shit is not only indicative of the mental rot that is global warming et al, its also indicative of the state of general practical knowledge in the western world these days. The concept that you plaster the Atlantic with wind turbines makes sense if you have no knowledge about the geography of the oceans, any concept of what is required to build stuff in the middle of the ocean and the vast destructive power of the sea and wind. After all the writer will have heard of offshore turbines, so they exist, so whats the problem? Just put them all over the Atlantic, just like that, problem solved.

    I despair, I really do.

  16. Any Greenfreaks supporting this idea need to be set adrift in an open rowboat in the middle of a Atlantic storm. Even a “mild” one will suffice.

    They may just have time to realise how full of shite they are before they drown–but I doubt it.

  17. “likely to be very significant hurdles”

    A common correlation according to Confucius – statisticians apart, man who say “significant” talk shite.

  18. Candidly I expected the reaction to this truly corajus idea to be an outpouring of neo-liberal cock rot. Firstly I was not disappointed. Secondly there is nothing but status quo thinking on display when pension funds desperately need gilts.

  19. ‘The two researchers found that if a wind farm were built across three million square kilometres of the ocean it would account for roughly the equivalent of all energy used today.’

    ‘Roughly’ is doing a lot of work there.

    ‘Researcher’ and ‘journalist’ seem to be merging.

  20. “The two researchers did a back of a fag packet calculation based on installed capacity rather than actual production, didn’t take into account transmission losses or the fact that the ocean is miles deep there and is cut down the middle by a tectonic plate junction and decided that they could hand-wave everything else away to get some column inches.”

    That sounds more like it!

  21. I have not read the article, but if this is anything more than just a simple arithmetical computation of the area required to generate wind power for the whole planet’s power needs, such as a serious suggestion that it could be done in such a way, then words utterly fail me.

    Gaia would have her revenge, preferably disproportionately on the insane Green cvnts responsible.

    Is that the real Murphy Richards back again? If so, welcome, you have been missed.

  22. blame the journalists, not the authors.

    The paper isn’t about actual power generation, its about the difference in the potential wind power available using an ocean as opposed to land based wind farm – it has does not consider potential costs or viability.

    The worked out the ideal separation between towers (about 3km) and how the wind is refreshed/maintained from the upper atmosphere, then created virtual wind farms in each regime – the land farm centred in Kansas in the great plains and the ocean field based in mid-Atlantic.

    It turns out that the land based field has a maximum potential of 7 terawatts whilst the ocean based field has a potential of 18 terawatts.

    How useful that information is I do not know, but then scientists spend billions on pure research and much has little value – its just no-one knows which will turn out to be important in the long run.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-enough-wind-energy-over-the-oceans-to-power-human-civilisation?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

  23. “It turns out that the land based field has a maximum potential of 7 terawatts whilst the ocean based field has a potential of 18 terawatts.”

    But land based would have actual people who could use it. A gazillion terawatts at mid-ocean is useless.

  24. “blame the journalists, not the authors.

    The paper isn’t about actual power generation, its about the difference in the potential wind power available using an ocean as opposed to land based wind farm – it has does not consider potential costs or viability.”

    Thats akin to saying if we can extract sunbeans from cucumbers the world sunbeam consumption could be produced using Xm acres of cucumber plantations. True using the prior assumptions, but otherwise fucking useless.

    If this sort of tat is what passes for ‘research’ in universities these days the Ecks purge can’t start a day too soon.

  25. Josephine, yup, the Indy have ballsed it up, because, reasons.

    http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/03/1705710114.full

    BiS;

    From the paper (above linky)

    “we also assessed potential climate impacts for each of the simulated wind farms. We find that the enhanced power generation rates in the Atlantic may come at the expense of exerting large nonlocal climate impacts.

    Changes are particularly strong north of the Arctic Circle, where a cooling of surface temperatures down to −13 K is obtained regionally.”

    13 degrees below absolute zero? WTF? Got to hope there’s a bit of a boo-boo there.

    “Furthermore, sizable changes in the near-surface 950-hPa wind speed caused by giant wind farms in the North Atlantic may affect onshore wind energy installations in the United Kingdom, France, and Western Europe in general.”

    Hmm.

  26. give the problem to mr potatohead. Give him a couple of days and he’ll write a blogpost with his solution to all these problems.
    What! he’s got no knowledge of this !- hasn’t stopped him pontificating before

  27. Why don’t these greenies do it then? Raise the money on Kickstarter, start building, make themselves rich and save the planet?

  28. “blame the journalists, not the authors”

    Why? You think the authors didn’t put it out for publication? And don’t use the “journalist screwed it up” defense – they screw up everything.

  29. The entire world could be powered by one deep-sea wind farm stretching across the North Atlantic.

    The two researchers found that if a wind farm were built across three million square kilometres of the ocean it would account for roughly the equivalent of all energy used today.

    Yep. And if I ate 10 bowls of three bean chili and put a thumb in my ass I could fly to work.

  30. Either set off the next ice age or completely melt the polar cap. One of the two

    So, you seem to have the climate science forecasting technique pretty-much nailed, then.

  31. Surely the Green parties of each country can raise the sums themselves to produce a full sized working model including transmission method?
    From their own funds, not national funds.

  32. Martin,

    At which point every computer in green and left wing organisation falls over with the refrain: “Does not compute – they are the same”

  33. Airbourne generators.
    Haven’t heard much about those in recent years.
    Used to be a regular thing.
    Did “studies” on those projects get ridiculed out of fashion to be replaced by “deep sea” ?

  34. Ah, the airborne turbines. From the sadly retired John Brignell (to the tune of Nuts in May): “Tell us how much does the cable weigh?” There’s some utterly spectacular engineering constraints on putting a generator aloft—so much so that their total effect is make the whole idea impossible. At heart, the problem is that the cable has to simultaneously tether the generator and deliver power, and these two requirements are in direct opposition to each other.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.