"Green" policies are destroying this country

Well it certainly not the zero emissions that greens attempt to paint it as. But no matter.

My problem with green energy generation is that it is intermittent, unreliable and is all based on green hopium where when asked the cost greens run for the hills.

His napkin math is ridiculous.

Right at the start he absurdly claims the height of each turbine is 200 m (average is 70 m) and the spacing between each turbine is 1km

The only way that makes any sense if the rotor diameter itself was 200 m, and the installation was using an estimated spacing of 5+ rotor diameters. He incorrectly cites @2:00 that the spacing is 5x the height. He's already off to a bad start.

The absurdities only continue from there, to wildly bloat the idea that wind needs to replace 100% of the Netherlands need (that's not under proposal anywhere).

There's also the inflation of 43.8 million KwH up to 44 kwH, he does this inflation again when calculating 2,420 windmills. By his own math of 106 Bn over 44 million, that's 2409 oversized massive windmills spaced 1 km apart, not 2420.

Then, he calculates the space for 2,500 windmills, to be 50 km sq.

He then arbitrarily claims the capacity factor for a wind turbine is 25%. The average is 36% in the USA with maximums up to 56% and minimums of 24%.

Then he inflates the number of windmills to ten thousand, an area of 100 km sq. This is continuing to compound errors.

He then decides the only way to store all that energy is hydrogen, even though theres no grid in the world with such a setup, nor is one being proposed. He doesn't offer up any calculations for the energy requirements or losses in this section, he just hopes you're roped in already.

And this head scratching line:

Which is all complete nonsense. As he's gone on the rounding up keeps happening and now we have 24,420 turbines across a 150 km sq area which if I haven't lost my marbles here, is assuming even more spacing between turbines.

I'm sure it does wonders for the drive-bys who believe this crap. 665 likes in 30k views and 430 subscribers. Wow.

Wind turbine developers have exhausted best locations for onshore wind generation. The turbines are getting taller and more prominent, they have to to compensate for less favorable locations since wind speed increases with increasing height above the ground.

In generation the turbines need to be at least 7 rotor diameters away from each other and there are also restrictions on how near they can be to residential properties in some jurisdictions.

It's shocking how climate policies drive lack of investment in fossil fuels discovery, development and taxation policies actually leads to supply constraints over time in particular markets, how actions of western politicians lead to destruction of supply (Libya, Venezuela) and the current restrictions on Russian supply scoring a policy own goal for Germany in particular (EnergieWende)

Smearing shite on the nearest work of art shortly I go view da cor.

TBF, now I’m interested to know the energy per capita between China and USA etc.

China 3940 kWh (https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php)

USA 11,757 kWh (https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/energy-consumption.php)

Thats an interesting perspective. All those lattes, video games, Google searches, porn websites, crypto, etc. etc. etc.

Even when you stack that against China being the worlds global manufacturing hub, it’s still dwarfed per capita..that’s a humbling statistic.

The words "could potentially revolutionise" trigger my hype sensors. Been reading stuff like that about battery technology for 20 years. Usually means it will die on the laboratory bench and never be heard of again. The abstract from Nature doesn't exactly sound like a claim of multiple factors of improvement, even allowing for "scientist speak" ...

Oh my, someone needs to check their facts:

"Moreover, hydrogen can potentially be used as a fuel. Long-touted as a sustainable fuel, hydrogen fuel produces no emissions as it burns upon reacting with oxygen -- no ignition is needed"

That is wrong, if you mix the two you have a very explosive mixture, but you need an ignition source, otherwise anytime you vented H2 into the atmosphere it would burn, which thankfully isn't the case.

Perhaps they were thinking of hydrazine.

Also, there are emissions from burning hydrogen, other than water, if you use oxygen in air to provide the oxidant, as you also get quite a lot of NOX forming due to the atmosphere being around 70% nitrogen and 20% oxygen and the very high flame temperature.

Also, it's not easy to store, unfortunately.

You are really barking up the wrong tree.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/

The per capita approach suggests that consumers are responsible for all the electrical use in a country, when that is simply not true.

China's economy is far smaller than is generally suggested. A study of satellite images of night time lights suggests autocrasies inflate their GDP figures by about 35%. China didn't even release made up GDP figures this year. So the US consumption figures in relation to the scale of their economic activity is probably very reasonable. Looking at CO2 as if it's all down to consumers is just incredibly misleading.