We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans

They were promised there would be no math.

The German chemical company BASF is moving its plants from its founding site in Ludwigshafen to countries with more favorable conditions (energy prices).

A green user complains that there are enough unused areas for wind turbines in Rhineland-Palatinate.

I ask GROK:

“In order to provide BASF in Ludwigshafen with a continuous supply of energy from wind turbines in Rhineland-Palatinate, a battery with a capacity of at least 20 TWh (terawatt hours) per year would be required.

To store 20 TWh of energy, you need 20,000,000,000 kWh / 13.5 kWh per battery = 1,481,481,481.48 batteries. Since you cannot use fractions of batteries, you would need at least 1,481,481,482 batteries.”

20 Replies to “We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans”

  1. There are lots of disused farmlands available thanks to the globalist agenda. Perhaps they can be repurposed to become battery farms…../s

    Bill gates has a bunch, maybe he can help out!

    1. Pol Pot had a solution for unused lands in his agrarian revolution. It would fit in well with the current carbon reduction vision. I suspect that many watermelons are contemplating that implementation.

  2. Speaking of math, here’s the info your government keeps hiding from you.
    See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) AR6, “CLIMATE CHANGE 2023: Synthesis Report” Page 19, Section B.5.2 which states: “For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate…).”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

    Canada’s total emissions in 2022 were 548,000,000 tonnes.

    Using this, determining Canada’s impact on climate is simple arithmetic:

    0.45°C / 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes x 548,000,000 tonnes = 0.0002466°C per year, or 1°C per 4055 years.

    Using similar logic, one can show that the proposed emissions reduction of 90Mt by 2022 (if actually achieved!) deferred global warming by 0.000041°C or 1°C per 24,691 years.

    Let taxpayers decide whether this is the solution to an “existential crisis.”

  3. “For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate…).”

    Is that a fact? or just a best estimate? What is the worst estimate?

    1. THe uncertainty is huge. “For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate, with a likely
      range from 0.27°C to 0.63°C).

      This would make Canada’s “likely” impact 1°C between 2897 and 6759 years.

      The science is unsettled!

      1. It’s not REALLY about the climate, or tonnes of anything. It’s about destroying and transferring the wealth of the fossil fuel industry to leftists clad in green. Oh … and taking down capitalism, and the Western standard of living across the globe (except Communist China and Russia). That’s all.

        The climate crap is one big cover story

    2. It’s a number based on an assumed ratio of a single variable which gets lost in the complexities of many variables affecting climate over a long time scale and is therefore impossible to verify. It just happens to be the one variable that must be controlled by those Jacobins and Bolsheviks wishing to control everything that serfs are “allowed” to do. Control of access to energy is control of everything.

      1. That’s their best shot at describing an “existential crisis.”

        That’s why they always discuss Canada’s emissions in terms of tonnes (an impressive sounding BIG number) instead of its tiny impact on temperatures.

    1. Missing brackets:

      (0.45°C / 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes) x 548,000,000 tonnes = 0.0002466°C per year, or 1°C per 4055 years.

      If you actually wanted to help, you could have explained the technical PEMDAS issue that was irrelevant to the point being made. “Error” implies a wrong answer.

    2. The Energy usage for BASF at Ludwigshafen amounts to 20 to 24 TWh per year (depending on the source you use).

      So why would they need to supply 20 TWh of battery storage?

      Wouldn’t they want to provide the daily usage amount, times the number of days you figure the wind won’t blow? Now perhaps you’d want to double this, so you could draw down one set of batteries, while charging another. And possibly allow some extra capacity for maintenance/repair activities

      PS I think Climate change is a scam

      1. Call it 20 TWh or 20,000,000,000 kWh / year
        or 54,794,520 kWh/day
        or 2,283,105 kWh/hour

        So one day of coverage would require you to build 14,050 Tesla Megapacks(3.9MwH), at a cost of $1,235,890 each. (Discounts are available, in batches of 1000 for a mere $848,135,990)

        So 14 discount kilo-Megapacks, would cost you $11,873,902,600.
        Your maintenance fee is a mere 0.5% of your order cost, per year.

        So every year, you pay $59,369,513 in maintenance.

        At a profit of $1,541,352,200 per year, it’ll take to year 9 to start seeing a profit again, but given that you lose capacity every time the batteries are charged, that requires a separate calculation to see when you have to start replacing them.

  4. Meanwhile the battery farm at Otay Mesa in San Diego continues to burn … again … this time it’s been on fire for ten days.

    Because we WANT toxic emissions.

  5. None of that crap can be built without coal, oil and gas. I never tire of pointing that out, because it is an undeniable fact.

  6. Cenovus is doing a turnaround at the Lloydminster upgrader. There’s lots of fancy cars and trucks around town. Many out if province plates too. An airbnber neighbour was playing accordion on the dock.
    Nice to see O&G supporting the economy, employment and our lives.

  7. Obviously.. All heavy industry will disappear.. With it the jobs, expertise and wealth it creates.. You cant just flick a switch and turn it all back on..

    Net zero was the math red flag but the public and the politicians didn’t care.. I dont care anymore..

  8. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Turbine: spins very fast; usually inside a containment. New technology starting in 1800s.
    Windmill: spins slow; usually in open area. See windmills in Holland or on older farms. Old technology made somewhat newer thanks to modern materials.

    Renewable wind power uses windmills just like the old Dutch windmills.

Navigation