Meanwhile in Germany:

  • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So you say they would also be at 100% wind energy if they only had more wind? And it has nothing to do with the miniscule amount of wind turbines?

    • buzziebee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that map shows more that the southern states don’t have much wind which is why that region is “lagging behind”. There’s plenty in the north and off the coasts so it should be built there and sent down south.

    • Sigmatics@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m saying the south would need at least 5x (you can fight me on the exact number) the turbines of the North to get to 100%.

      This is due to

      • higher energy consumption due to energy intensive industry
      • lower wind turbine output due to less wind

      Therefore it’s not worth it to build a ton of turbines in the south. Sure, we could have more in those locations where it’s worth it (dark spots on the map).

      I grew up in a village near the Alps, one of the few with it’s own citizen-financed wind turbine. My parents invested. They’re lucky to get their money back because the return is so bad. Once the state money ran out it barely paid for itself