Siemens unveil 14 MW offshore Turbine

[NickW + 2,714]

Another step up in size. How long before we get to 20 MW?

https://www.marinelink.com/news/siemens-gamesa-launches-mw-offshore-wind-478602

[markslawson + 1,042]

That's nice, I guess, and offshore wind is a touch more reliable than onshore, but offshore wind is considerably more expensive. You'll note that the press release does not trouble to mention prices, but building a major installation like that out, say, in the Atlantic is a huge undertaking. Its bad enough when they're on land. And the power is still intermittent, so the grid still requires conventional backup power. In all its still a very expensive way to get cheap electricity.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

30 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 In all its still a very expensive way to get cheap electricity.

🤣😎😍😁👍

Actually it will be cheaper than their current versions.  Have to wonder at what point does crane size become too problematic and they go with segmented blades and it builds just like cranes do.

Edited May 21, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

That's nice, I guess, and offshore wind is a touch more reliable than onshore, but offshore wind is considerably more expensive. You'll note that the press release does not trouble to mention prices, but building a major installation like that out, say, in the Atlantic is a huge undertaking. Its bad enough when they're on land. And the power is still intermittent, so the grid still requires conventional backup power. In all its still a very expensive way to get cheap electricity.

It's not clear that offshore is more expensive than onshore at scale. Offshore can be built factory-style in a seaside location and transported in very large sections to the destinations. Onshore must be transported in pieces by road and the land must be acquired.

For all wind and solar, we need massive storage before fossil fuels can be replaced. In the interim, there is a rapid move away from coal to natural gas (fossil CH4). This can shift to CH4 produced from solar and wind electricity. The "right" way to do this will be driven by the capital cost.

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

It's not clear that offshore is more expensive than onshore at scale.

Dan - I was reacting to the various levelised cost estimates put out by people such as the IEA which always lists offshore wind as considerably more expensive than onshore.. Okay, scale production I'll grant you but I might point out that the installations are often well out to sea and subject to storms and waves and so have to be very much sturdier than the on-land towers, as well as properly anchored to the sea bed. Basically they are a substantial feat of engineering. That's good on one level, but its not cheap. Then there are all the problems of servicing the towers out at sea. Given all that it is impossible to see how off shore wind could be cheaper than on-shore. As for this theme of yours concerning CH4 - sure, gas is replacing coal in America for local reasons (its happening in the UK too). I won't argue the point about whether the gas will be produced from renewable energy, but we can agree to leave it up to the markets. Don't hold your breath. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually it will be cheaper than their current versions.  Have to wonder at what point does crane size become too problematic and they go with segmented blades and it builds just like cranes do.

I'm sure its cheaper, but its like getting a 10 per cent discount on a Rolls Royce. Its still a real expensive way to get around town..

[Meredith Poor + 883]

SiemensGamesa News Post:

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/newsroom/2020/05/200519-siemens-gamesa-turbine-14-222-dd

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Meredith Poor
Fix spelling error

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

I'm sure its cheaper, but its like getting a 10 per cent discount on a Rolls Royce. Its still a real expensive way to get around town..

Bit out of date Mark. The scale of offshore windfarms has brought the price down to being able to compete with little or no subsidy. Rather than Rolls Royce prices we are now in the realms of 'Median price of road cars' 

https://www.taylorhopkinson.com/subsidy-free-uk-offshore-wind/

I accept older wind farms will continue to receive subsidies for a period but that was the nature of developing the industry to where it is today. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

14 hours ago, NickW said:

Bit out of date Mark. The scale of offshore windfarms has brought the price down to being able to compete with little or no subsidy. Rather than Rolls Royce prices we are now in the realms of 'Median price of road cars' 

No still Rolls Royce.. or maybe high-end BMW. You are looking at one part of the government subsidy package and thinking that's all there is - sorry, no. Wind would not exist at all if the grids were not forced to accept it. The pricing your looking at is the result of an artificial sub market. Again, its a discount from a high price. Britain is aiming for zero net emissions remember? At present 20 per cent of energy on the UK grid has to be green for Scotland its 100 per cent. Further the wind generators have to be placed offshore to avoid all the environmental hassles of placing them on shore. To suggest that this is a cheap way of doing anything is simply absurd. Consumers have to pay for green targets through higher prices. I am not out of date at all, but you may be. Leave it with you.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

High-end BMW? More like a Tesla. Floating turbines -2019 set a new record for the highest annual average capacity factor for a UK offshore windfarm: Hywind Scotland achieved 55.3% in the calendar year 2019.

Hywind Scotland has a median output of 59.1%. The next-closest to this was Walney phases 3&4, which has a median output of 48.4%. 

Excess wind energy will be stored in Norwegian pumped hydro via HVDC which will make wind as high quality an energy source for the grid as any other.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

31 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

High-end BMW? More like a Tesla. Floating turbines -2019 set a new record for the highest annual average capacity factor for a UK offshore windfarm: Hywind Scotland achieved 55.3% in the calendar year 2019.

Not how power economics work.  If installation is 3X cost of onshore wind(they are currently), you would need at least a 2X increase in CF to compensate as there are higher expenses for lower CF.  Onshore new CF's are 45%.  Maintenance $$$ is vastly lower.  Longevity of turbines on land is vastly higher... so uh... disposal of onshore is vastly cheaper.  None of these end of life costs are even reflected currently in offshore costs. 

PS: Capacity factor for wind turbines is a STUPID calculation. REALLY STUPID as all it truly means is that some dumb ass put too small of a generator in the turbine to curb upfront costs.  The calculation that SHOULD be done is percentage of power available that was collected at any location.  If a wind site averages 1000W/m^2 swept area but you only collect on average 100W/m^2 of it.... with a capacity factor of 80%, yet your competition at the same wind site collects 30%, but only has a capacity factor of 30%... WHO is superior? 

Edited May 23, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not how power economics work.  If installation is 3X cost of onshore wind(they are currently), you would need at least a 2X increase in CF to compensate as there are higher expenses for lower CF.  Onshore new CF's are 45%.  Maintenance $$$ is vastly lower.  Longevity of turbines on land is vastly higher... so uh... disposal of onshore is vastly cheaper.  None of these end of life costs are even reflected currently in offshore costs. 

A key aspect you have overlooked is that these are floating wind turbines. That means they are built on a manufacturing line in a port, towed to where needed and plugged into the undersea grid. Significant maintenance and end of life can be handled by towing the turbine back to port. Land costs are much lower out at sea, people don't have to look at them or listen to them.

Your cost numbers for offshore wind are 7 years out of date. Offshore wind is only 65% more expensive than onshore.

"New-build offshore wind has seen the fastest cost fall of any renewable energy source, according to BNEF’s second-half 2019 global benchmark price of $78/MWh – down 32% on the same stage in 2018 and 12% from the first half of the year.

“New offshore wind projects throughout Europe now deploy turbines up to 10MW, unlocking Capex and Opex savings,” said the research group. European auctions are now contracting projects into the 2020s on a zero-subsidy basis or at rates below $50/MWh, as seen in the recent UK CfD round, while the turbine sector continued to up-size with the completion of the first 12MW Haliade-X this month.

BNEF’s onshore wind benchmarks of $47/MWh for new-build onshore wind and $51/MWh for PV projects are down 6% and 11% respectively from the first half of 2019, which the researchers said is “mainly down to cheaper equipment” with a 7% average decline in wind turbine prices since last year." https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/offshore-wind-power-price-plunges-by-a-third-in-a-year-bnef/2-1-692944

Edited May 23, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Offshore wind is pretty exciting. Worth subsidizing to develop the technology. The USA subsidized fracking and it paid off bigly when we really needed it. 

This article suggests offshore can beat onshore by 2028. I look forward to cheap electricity that supports liberal democracy. 

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/01/29/report-says-offshore-wind-could-beat-onshore-wind-on-cost/#gref

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

22 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Offshore wind is pretty exciting. Worth subsidizing to develop the technology. The USA subsidized fracking and it paid off bigly when we really needed it. 

This article suggests offshore can beat onshore by 2028. I look forward to cheap electricity that supports liberal democracy. 

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/01/29/report-says-offshore-wind-could-beat-onshore-wind-on-cost/#gref

No, the Shale industry did not get subsidies.   Down vote for blatant lying for ideological reasons.

PS: EDIT: Yes, Western European nations Should 100% subsidize their wind industry.  It is the only viable energy source they have. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, the Shale industry did not get subsidies.   Down vote for blatant lying for ideological reasons.

PS: EDIT: Yes, Western European nations Should 100% subsidize their wind industry.  It is the only viable energy source they have. 

At least you see the benefit to nations without significant supplies of oil / gas / coal. I assume from an energy security perspective. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

No still Rolls Royce.. or maybe high-end BMW. You are looking at one part of the government subsidy package and thinking that's all there is - sorry, no. Wind would not exist at all if the grids were not forced to accept it. The pricing your looking at is the result of an artificial sub market. Again, its a discount from a high price. Britain is aiming for zero net emissions remember? At present 20 per cent of energy on the UK grid has to be green for Scotland its 100 per cent. Further the wind generators have to be placed offshore to avoid all the environmental hassles of placing them on shore. To suggest that this is a cheap way of doing anything is simply absurd. Consumers have to pay for green targets through higher prices. I am not out of date at all, but you may be. Leave it with you.  

Whats your alternative - build loads of coal plant without any emissions controls. That will get the price down nicely. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

52 minutes ago, NickW said:

At least you see the benefit to nations without significant supplies of oil / gas / coal. I assume from an energy security perspective. 

Yup, just as Egypt if it had a brain would be going all in on Solar. It is what they have. Pursuit of superior economics allows you to pursue R&D to solve problems and improve products and therefore you can care about the environment by truly developing class leading products instead of half way house jokes which actually just hurt yourself more and  the environment at same time as now if there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed  you have no ability to address the problem as you have no buffer..

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, the Shale industry did not get subsidies.   Down vote for blatant lying for ideological reasons.

PS: EDIT: Yes, Western European nations Should 100% subsidize their wind industry.  It is the only viable energy source they have. 

A bit harsh

Solar resources are pretty good in Spain, Southern Italy. Greece, South of France, Switzerland

Western Euro has a reasonable Hydro resource

Some good Geothermal spots, particularly in Italy

Biogas & Biomass are fairly widespread too. 

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, the Shale industry did not get subsidies.   Down vote for blatant lying for ideological reasons.

PS: EDIT: Yes, Western European nations Should 100% subsidize their wind industry.  It is the only viable energy source they have. 

"The increase in shale oil and gas production in the United States follows many years of investment and research carried out by the federal government. Between 1978 and 1992, DOE invested about $137 million in the Eastern Gas Shale Program, which helped demonstrate and commercialize many of the technologies in use today."

Also, fracking =/= shale industry. But thank you for your submission, unfortunately we do not have a space at our organization for your services at this time. 

https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/shale-gas-rd

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Foot

For people curious as to 'real world' developments'  take a glance at what Egypt did for their electricity needs.

The Mega Project is an impressive 2 1/2 year buildout of almost 14 and a half gigawatts (akin to 14 massive 1,000 Mw plants) built on 3 separate locations.

Access to the Zohr gas field, amongst others reasons, prompted the Egyptians to build over 100% of their country's electricity needs with this technology.

The Vietnamese are following suit with the Thi Vai project of 3,200 Megawatts. These CCGPs will be supplied with dirt cheap LNG - US sourced - and a nearby FSRU terminal.

Sergipe, in Brazil, (1,500 Mw), is firing up with this hardware and has plans for at least 2 other CCGP/FSRU combos to provide electricity in outlying areas of the country.

 

Innovations such as floating turbines will continue apace in the offshore wind world (direct drive introduction probably saved the industry), but the cost - despite recent offerings - will never challenge several alternative modes of electricity production.

Seemingly mundane issues like depth of channels through which to ship lengthy spar buoys pose significant 'real world' issues for floating turbines.

Looking at those figures quoted above, keep in mind several European auctions do not include the transmission costs.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

51 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Foot

For people curious as to 'real world' developments'  take a glance at what Egypt did for their electricity needs.

The Mega Project is an impressive 2 1/2 year buildout of almost 14 and a half gigawatts (akin to 14 massive 1,000 Mw plants) built on 3 separate locations.

Access to the Zohr gas field, amongst others reasons, prompted the Egyptians to build over 100% of their country's electricity needs with this technology.

Looking at those figures quoted above, keep in mind several European auctions do not include the transmission costs.

They never do add in transmission costs: This would doom their projects into irrelevance irregardless of basic fact, none of those transmissions lines would need to exist without said projects.  Could say the same about long distance Pipelines(I would add it in).  Railroads: Nope. 

Egypt: Still should do solar since Israel was kind enough to find them a large NG field in the Med instead of their dwindling onshore fields... 

PS: A side SIDE note: Bent Pyramid in Egypt seems to demonstrate poured in place limestone on its casing as its limestone makeup exists nowhere in Egypt and seems to demonstrate jumbled mess.  Hrmmm.  Why is it that the most advanced ancient Egyptian tech is all well... ancient(5000+ years ago) and then it devolves into midevil-->modern trash?  Ancient people were not stupid as modernists claim(to make themselves feel better I assume where THEY are the pinnacle of human thought and morality of course...).  It is obvious they had lathes, mills, able to spin 50ton blocks of granite.  Tube drills which could drill faster through granite than anything we have today... The real question is: Which kind of power?  Hydro power?  Most likely, as people forget that the Nile river dropped a ++hundred feet in the last 5000 years and this most likely was the reason for the abandonment of the Giza plateau.  Giza plateau used to be waterfront property and downstream must have been cataracts.  Seems probable to me that one initial reason for the insides of the pyramids were for hydro RAM pumps.  Personally it makes sense due to the layout if one considers that the Nile elevation dropped destroying the RAM pump, but leaving the works/city behind which could lead someone to decide to put facing etc over the now useless hydro RAM pumps and create the Great Pyramids in their current form.  Seems like a modern "revitalization" of old industrial area project to me.  It would explain the "kings" chamber and tunnels that supposedly go nowhere other than down off Giza Plateau.  Most common human endeavor throughout history is water works. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

8 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

"The increase in shale oil and gas production in the United States follows many years of investment and research carried out by the federal government. Between 1978 and 1992, DOE invested about $137 million in the Eastern Gas Shale Program, which helped demonstrate and commercialize many of the technologies in use today."

Also, fracking =/= shale industry. But thank you for your submission, unfortunately we do not have a space at our organization for your services at this time. 

https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/shale-gas-rd

Are you for real?  JAY K. made the decision that fracking was government subsidy... and FRACKING has been around via private investment since the 40's.  I assumed(my bad) JAY K. was ignorant of history of Fracking and what he ACTUALLY meant was Shale+Fracking +directional.

PS: Full disclaimer, I got paid via government subsidy, and our entire company for my 7 years working in the wind industry.  Now defunct company.  Trying to make a downwind, floppy helo blade style, gye wired tower for 1/2 price windturbine.  The dynamics problem were just too extreme even with active dampners etc, due to wind gusts.  Could have made the tower, but the MANDATED via idiot GOV fiat for some DUMB ASS reason, addition of floppy helo style turbine blades was the death knell of the project. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[BradleyPNW + 282]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Are you for real?  JAY K. made the decision that fracking was government subsidy... and FRACKING has been around via private investment since the 40's.  I assumed(my bad) JAY K. was ignorant of history of Fracking and what he ACTUALLY meant was Shale+Fracking +directional.

PS: Full disclaimer, I got paid via government subsidy, and our entire company for my 7 years working in the wind industry.  Now defunct company.  Trying to make a downwind, floppy helo blade style, gye wired tower for 1/2 price windturbine.  The dynamics problem were just too extreme even with active dampners etc, due to wind gusts.  Could have made the tower, but the MANDATED via idiot GOV fiat for some DUMB ASS reason, addition of floppy helo style turbine blades was the death knell of the project. 

I'm not saying you weren't qualified for the position, I'm saying there were better candidates. Our organization hires people who know how to work with people and maintain a productive environment. When we read your submission we decided you weren't a good fit with our company culture. If we hired an individual such as yourself our good employees might look for employment elsewhere. Nothing personal, it's just kind of our thing to not hire dicks, you know.