3 small and inefficient energisystemt that each only generates close to nothing. But combining them in one unit - and POW miracle happens. It grows to a Gigantic Powerhouse. Gratulations !
Right. These "inefficient" renewables now surpassing 100% energy requirements in certain regions within specific time frames, said time frames growing larger.
PS. for reference Gates' new plant opening 2028 if things go well will produce 345MWh for 60 years with an NRE of about $4B after operating costs will probably be about 20-30% cheaper that the LOCE quoted above.
For several years now the International Energy Agency (IEA) has declared solar energy as the cheapest for of electricity bar none. Including nuclear. Wind, solar and storage only continuing to get cheaper since the original announcement. And who is the IEA? The IEA is a long-standing, industry-standard, go-to data aggregator and forecaster for all things related to the global energy sector. All the pros in business, investment and government turn to the IEA when they need reliable energy data. The IEA has historically favoured legacy energy like oil, gas, nuclear and hydro in their projections. But now they especially say SOLAR IS CHEAPEST! Look it up.
@@douglascutler1037 I just went to their (levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator) page and Nuclear seems to be top of the list... Number 1 with 28.18 LCOE: Sweden, Nuclear, LTO (20 years), (1000 MW) Sweden - Nuclear - $28.18/MWh Denmark - Wind - $29.18/MWh Switzerland - Nuclear - $29.60/MWh France - Nuclear - $30.65/MWh Norway - Wind - $30.76/MWh Sweden - Nuclear - $31.36/MWh USA - Nuclear - $33.25/MWh Switzerland - Nuclear - $33.53/MWh Brazil - Wind - $33.59/MWh France - Solar - $33.94/MWh This is a really useful tool.
@@douglascutler1037 My detailed reply to you was deleted... according to IEA nuclear still dominates as the most cost effective reliable solution. levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator Sweden Nuclear LTO (20 years) (1000 MW) 28.18 USD/MWh Useful website though, thank you.
If you lose the turbines and made it smaller maybe some sort of rigid inflatable, so it could be air transportable, I could see limited use for one of these in disaster relief scenarios. Apart from that, I don't see the point.
Thanks for another interesting video, I like this 3 in 1 solution indeed. Cheers 👍💪✌
Glad you enjoyed it
That wind turbines shading the panels is great idea!
True. But the masts can be made longer
So cool!
3 small and inefficient energisystemt that each only generates close to nothing. But combining them in one unit - and POW miracle happens. It grows to a Gigantic Powerhouse. Gratulations !
Right. These "inefficient" renewables now surpassing 100% energy requirements in certain regions within specific time frames, said time frames growing larger.
Now that is what you call quantum.👍
🥰
😎👍😊
How does the cost of this compare to the cleanest form of reliable energy?
Nuclear £65-75 per megawatt-hour (MWh) levelized cost of energy (LCOE).
PS. for reference Gates' new plant opening 2028 if things go well will produce 345MWh for 60 years with an NRE of about $4B after operating costs will probably be about 20-30% cheaper that the LOCE quoted above.
For several years now the International Energy Agency (IEA) has declared solar energy as the cheapest for of electricity bar none. Including nuclear. Wind, solar and storage only continuing to get cheaper since the original announcement.
And who is the IEA? The IEA is a long-standing, industry-standard, go-to data aggregator and forecaster for all things related to the global energy sector. All the pros in business, investment and government turn to the IEA when they need reliable energy data. The IEA has historically favoured legacy energy like oil, gas, nuclear and hydro in their projections. But now they especially say SOLAR IS CHEAPEST! Look it up.
@@douglascutler1037 I just went to their (levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator) page and Nuclear seems to be top of the list...
Number 1 with 28.18 LCOE:
Sweden, Nuclear, LTO (20 years), (1000 MW)
Sweden - Nuclear - $28.18/MWh
Denmark - Wind - $29.18/MWh
Switzerland - Nuclear - $29.60/MWh
France - Nuclear - $30.65/MWh
Norway - Wind - $30.76/MWh
Sweden - Nuclear - $31.36/MWh
USA - Nuclear - $33.25/MWh
Switzerland - Nuclear - $33.53/MWh
Brazil - Wind - $33.59/MWh
France - Solar - $33.94/MWh
This is a really useful tool.
@@douglascutler1037 My detailed reply to you was deleted... according to IEA nuclear still dominates as the most cost effective reliable solution.
levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
Sweden Nuclear LTO (20 years) (1000 MW) 28.18 USD/MWh
Useful website though, thank you.
Show us the real not ai
And those turbines aren't going to create chronic shading at all....Such an obviously bad idea.
That is a very bad idea because there is a lack of tidal, geothermal, nuclear, gas, oil, alcohol , biomass, and bicycles.
Yes that and the lack of tea making facilities, means it's a no from me.
If you lose the turbines and made it smaller maybe some sort of rigid inflatable, so it could be air transportable, I could see limited use for one of these in disaster relief scenarios. Apart from that, I don't see the point.