Vestas launch 15MW Offshore Turbine

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

I ducked back into the debate briefly to urge you to read this report. As the highly qualified author concludes, offshore wind farms are all going to fail economically and have to be bailed out... offshore wind is a dead end.. as for you comments I'm glad you think the blades would be manufactured in a port. That may make you feel better.. now I will depart from the debate. Leave it with you. 

Well in the UK blade manufacturing is done at Hull (A major port), Isle of Wight (port locations) for almost a decade. Im sure facilities in other countries follow a similar pattern.....

Hull's Siemens factory produces first batch of wind turbine blades | Manufacturing sector | The Guardian

MHI Vestas' Isle of Wight blades for offshore wind farm by 2021 | Isle of Wight County Press

 

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

I am fine with Windmills and panels when they are built as an industrial complex as then they are cost effective. On a house? makes no sense. Among farms they are great match. Nat gas is so much better than coal. I was a Coal miner. I loved working underground and if I had to I  would go back underground today (but no more drilling for gas as I was on a gas drilling crew underground for a while) That said I have no problem kissing coal goodbye. Natural gas is a great bridge to the future and I think it is great for heating etc. That said I believe the best is clean energy (non carbon based) when it is cost effective. Solar and Wind have finally gotten to being cost effective just in the past 2 years. The electrical generation business in 10 years will be vastly different than it is today. Would I care if Lake Michigan had windmills that you can see from shore. I am ok with it. I do not think most are ok with it. 

Small wind turbines on houses are a waste of time but not so for solar. 

I have 1.5KW on my house. Self installed so no feed in tariff. We use the electricity, if not any surplus is diverted to our hot water cylinder and converted to hot water. 

Roof top solar is also using land that otherwise has no use and is very close to the consumer so there are minimal transmission losses. 

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually, not true in the USA/Canada except in a few locations.  Where the intense wind is, actually has lots of farm houses and siting is extremely difficult.  Where little wind is... has no people and is in effect a high desert.  Of course due to distances between turbines increasing steadily this is not a big deal.  True, the number of old farm housing keeps decreasing, average farm size keeps increasing, but they are still there and siting problems for setbacks are becoming an ever more relevant problem.  The bigger the turbine the larger the distance of separation as its blades/ice get thrown a much GREATER distance. 

Maybe curtails the actual size of each farm but I understand farmers are generally agreeable to having turbines on their land when the utility is paying $5000-$7000 ground rent per turbine a year and usually pay for the upgrade of the access roads. 

I don't know about the USA but in the UK we have national planning policy guidance that stipulates minimum distances between turbines and domestic houses. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

Dan - its this sort of silly misdirection which gives wind activists a bad name.. Sailing ships are no longer  a viable technology. I'm also not saying it can't be done .. of course it can. The point I'm making is that you're building big structures out in sea water for no particular reason except to generate horribly expensive electricity. Now I urge you to read this report. As the highly qualified author concludes, offshore wind farms are all going to fail economically and have to be bailed out... offshore wind is a dead end..  I only ducked back into the debate to link that report, and certainly not to bother with silly comments about sailing ships.. now I'll depart. Leave it with you.. 

It will be interesting to see how this develops. For car deliveries (and other non perishable goods) extending the transit time from 7 to 12 days is not critical. 

Oceanbird -- Sweden's new car carrier is the world's largest wind-powered vessel  | CNN Travel

[notsonice + 1,080]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Small wind turbines on houses are a waste of time but not so for solar. 

I have 1.5KW on my house. Self installed so no feed in tariff. We use the electricity, if not any surplus is diverted to our hot water cylinder and converted to hot water. 

Roof top solar is also using land that otherwise has no use and is very close to the consumer so there are minimal transmission losses. 

Self installed ? 99 percent of those being installed are being installed by professionals and the cost doubles. A typical install.... Solar panel installation costs around $18,500 for a 6kW solar panel system for a 1,500 square ft. home and the price per watt for solar panels can range from $2.50 to $3.50..... 6kW or 6 kilowatts is 6,000 watts of DC direct current power. This could produce an estimated 400 to 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of alternating current (AC) power per month, assuming at least 5 sun hours per day with the solar array facing South. This will yield around 25 -30kwh a day on a year round basis in most populated areas of the US or Europe for a value of $3 a day. A paypack of $1000 a year on a $18500 investment? On a roof that has to be replaced every 25 years? remember you will not get a loan for a solar system at 3 percent interest. To pay off the loan it will take you forever at 5 percent interest. IMO not worth it

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Self installed ? 99 percent of those being installed are being installed by professionals and the cost doubles. A typical install.... Solar panel installation costs around $18,500 for a 6kW solar panel system for a 1,500 square ft. home and the price per watt for solar panels can range from $2.50 to $3.50..... 6kW or 6 kilowatts is 6,000 watts of DC direct current power. This could produce an estimated 400 to 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of alternating current (AC) power per month, assuming at least 5 sun hours per day with the solar array facing South. This will yield around 25 -30kwh a day on a year round basis in most populated areas of the US or Europe for a value of $3 a day. A paypack of $1000 a year on a $18500 investment? On a roof that has to be replaced every 25 years? remember you will not get a loan for a solar system at 3 percent interest. To pay off the loan it will take you forever at 5 percent interest. IMO not worth it

I was just making the point as its a self intall I don't get a feed in tarrif but the technology is there to use all the power within the same household. Surprised you give a roof a lifespan of 25 years. In the Uk roofs normally last >50 years. 

6KW of solar  in California (LA)  will produce 10-11,000 kwh a year. 

How Much Does a 6kW Solar Panel System Cost in 2021? | EnergySage

Id be inclined to agree but with interest rates heading towards negative I do wonder. 

 

[notsonice + 1,080]

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

I was just making the point as its a self intall I don't get a feed in tarrif but the technology is there to use all the power within the same household. Surprised you give a roof a lifespan of 25 years. In the Uk roofs normally last >50 years. 

6KW of solar  in California (LA)  will produce 10-11,000 kwh a year. 

How Much Does a 6kW Solar Panel System Cost in 2021? | EnergySage

Id be inclined to agree but with interest rates heading towards negative I do wonder. 

 

interest rates for home improvement loans are not heading to negative nor can a consumer get a negative interest rate on any loan. Home improvement loans are at best 4 percent. The will not drop anymore as these loans are always in second or third place to mortgage loans. I looked into the real costs of an install and found out my insurance company takes another 200 to 400 a year just because roof replacement costs zoom when a solar system in ontop. US roofs on average last 25 years (shingles are rated for 30 to 35 years) however roofs do not on average make it to shingle life. High winds and Hail lessens life. The trend now is solar community gardens as they have a better payback and do not impact your own home. I would love to put in my own system as I have 700 sg ft of flat roof with great exposure, but the costs still does not justify it. Electricity in my neck of the woods is cheap I just looked at my last bill and pay 8.7 cents for winter and the top rate in summer for over 500 kwh/month is 13 cent (overall summer for me is 11 cents) My average year round is a little less than 10 cents. Typical bill is 75 a month and I have air conditioning  and a 4000 square foot home. I believe the cost of buying electricity is actually going down when inflation is factored in as it has in my area for the past 20 years. On top of it the LED lights and new refrigerators are so efficient my usage has declined 20 percent in the last 5 years. Next up getting rid of my electric clothes dryer, it is a pig and is at its end of life. Gas piping will get installed in the next month and then a new dryer. It will save around $1oo to 150 a year. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, notsonice said:

interest rates for home improvement loans are not heading to negative nor can a consumer get a negative interest rate on any loan. Home improvement loans are at best 4 percent. The will not drop anymore as these loans are always in second or third place to mortgage loans. I looked into the real costs of an install and found out my insurance company takes another 200 to 400 a year just because roof replacement costs zoom when a solar system in ontop. US roofs on average last 25 years (shingles are rated for 30 to 35 years) however roofs do not on average make it to shingle life. High winds and Hail lessens life. The trend now is solar community gardens as they have a better payback and do not impact your own home. I would love to put in my own system as I have 700 sg ft of flat roof with great exposure, but the costs still does not justify it. Electricity in my neck of the woods is cheap I just looked at my last bill and pay 8.7 cents for winter and the top rate in summer for over 500 kwh/month is 13 cent (overall summer for me is 11 cents) My average year round is a little less than 10 cents. Typical bill is 75 a month and I have air conditioning  and a 4000 square foot home. I believe the cost of buying electricity is actually going down when inflation is factored in as it has in my area for the past 20 years. On top of it the LED lights and new refrigerators are so efficient my usage has declined 20 percent in the last 5 years. Next up getting rid of my electric clothes dryer, it is a pig and is at its end of life. Gas piping will get installed in the next month and then a new dryer. It will save around $1oo to 150 a year. 

You assume the money is borrowed. 

Plenty of people have savings sitting in the bank with the real possibility of banks starting to charge them interest. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

You assume the money is borrowed. 

Plenty of people have savings sitting in the bank with the real possibility of banks starting to charge them interest. 

the companies pitching solar roof installs all work on the loan concept. I got pitched 3 times in the last year. They tell you you get the install at no cost (you borrow the money from them and then you pay it back with the produced power). These are 90 percent of the installs in the US. I have 3 friends who fell for it. The problem is you actually owe the whole loan amount and if the system fails or for any reason does not produce you have to still make a monthly payment. The installation company then resells the loans and makes themself whole plus within 30 days of the install. 60 to 65 percent of all homes have mortgages. Half of all Americans do not have $1000 in savings. Debt is an American way of life. A rooftop solar system is not a good investment IMO if you have an installation company do it. It would be a different story if the install did not include an interest loan.

Loan type: secured vs unsecured 

There are two main types of solar loans: secured loans and unsecured loans.

Secured loans are backed by an asset, typically your home. As such they tend to have lower rates, with the APR usually falling between 3-8%. Home equity loans and HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) are the most common versions of these. 

Residential PACE (R-PACE) loans are another example; they are secured through a lien on your property tax. PACE loans are offered to people with lower credit scores, but they typically charge a higher rate than a home equity loan or HELOC. 

Unsecured loans, as the name suggests, are offered without an asset offered as collateral. These generally require a good credit score, and the better your credit score, the lower your rate. The APR on an unsecured solar loan can vary from 5.5% to 20%, or even higher.  

Solar loan rates 

Secured loans such as home equity loans and HELOC usually have APRs between 3-8.5%, depending on your credit score. The rates on PACE loans tend to be at the higher end of this spectrum, with APRs between 6.5 and 8.5%

The rate range on unsecured loans is much higher. In general, the rates vary from APRs of 6% to 30% or higher. Getting a rate at the lower end usually requires an excellent credit score. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

21 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The articles I read specifically mentioned transport. They said that for distances beyond 300 km offshore, gas transport is more cost-effective than electric power lines. I speculate that this is true when the electricity is going to be turned into gas anyway, and not if it is to be fed into the grid for immediate use. In this model, you would feed near-shore wind into the grid and on-shore gassify any excess, while far off-shore would just produce gas, to be used for industry and for storage.

There are several HVDC links in Europe that are 600 - 1000 km. Here are links to 2

https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/international-connections/nordlink/

https://neuconnect-interconnector.com/

If you google interconnectors you will find many more. 

I do not know the calculations around economics, my impression from being at the outskirts of the industry is that the reason operators are looking at hydrogen and ammonia is storage. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

17 hours ago, notsonice said:

I am fine with Windmills and panels when they are built as an industrial complex as then they are cost effective.

it really depends on the context. In a Western context I am inclined to agree with some caveats, but the West is not the entire world https://www.homebiogas.com/

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

You assume the money is borrowed. 

Plenty of people have savings sitting in the bank with the real possibility of banks starting to charge them interest. 

In this case the investment should be compared to what reasonable return it could be expected to make if invested... having said that I agree and am personally investing into various energy saving improvements. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 2/11/2021 at 6:38 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

One problem with offshore wind is getting the energy back to shore, especially fron far offshore. Vestas and Orsted are looking hard at producing floating wind turbnes with integrated electrolyzers to produce hydrogen, or possibly ammonia. The gas can be sent to shore in a pipeline, or (especially for ammonia) sent by ships.  For hydrogen used to make electricity, assume a 50% E->H->E efficinecy, so you need twice as many turbines, but you now have the whole ocean to work with. First use would not be for electricity, but to replace hydrogen and ammonia now made from natural gas. Next use for ammonia would be as fuel for large ships, which is a great match with shipping the ammonia by ship in the first place. Use for energy storage to produce electricity happens later after economies of scale kick in.

Wait, what?? Ammonia for fuel?!  Yes, it makes sense, as it has much higher energy density than hydrogen.

Would it be more efficient to use tanker sized flow batteries instead of converting to traditional liquid/gas fuels?

Could a charged electrolyte be pumped like a hydrocarbon using the necessary precautions? Ie. rubber lined pipes for transfer

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

In this case the investment should be compared to what reasonable return it could be expected to make if invested... having said that I agree and am personally investing into various energy saving improvements. 

0.01% on bank deposits if you are lucky

The return on home solar is guaranteed and tax free. 

However I normally advise people to look at other measures before considering solar - insulation, LED lighting, double / triple glazing if it needs replacing, condensing boilers which give a better return on investment. 

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by NickW

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Would it be more efficient to use tanker sized flow batteries instead of converting to traditional liquid/gas fuels?

Could a charged electrolyte be pumped like a hydrocarbon using the necessary precautions? Ie. rubber lined pipes for transfer

I have no expertise in this. I was only reporting on news reports.

I speculate that it is highly unlikely that shuttling redox liquids is a cost-effective way to transport energy over long distances. Flow battery liquids are quite expensive per unit volume and you would need a total of three or four pipes (two incoming, one or two outgoing), not one, all filled with the stuff.

(NOTE: numbers are rough, based on cursory "research"). Flow liquids have about 50 Wh/kg and a density of about  1. if a (huge) offshore turbine averages 10 MW, you will need a flow of 200,000 Kg/h or 200,000 L/h . A VLCC can carry 2 million bbl (320 million litres) of oil, so 1600 hours or about 9 weeks of production. one tanker per week can serve 9 turbines. That tanker's redox battery contains an appreciable percentage of the world's annual vanadium production, and you need enough of them to maintain the once-a-week schedule.

Hydrogen and ammonia are super cheap and flexible. Ammonia in particular needs no initial new infrastructure at the ports when you are selling into the existing market for seaborne ammonia, and a seaborne hydrogen infrastructure is being put in place to transport NG-derived hydrogen from Australia to Japan.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

Maybe curtails the actual size of each farm but I understand farmers are generally agreeable to having turbines on their land when the utility is paying $5000-$7000 ground rent per turbine a year and usually pay for the upgrade of the access roads. 

I don't know about the USA but in the UK we have national planning policy guidance that stipulates minimum distances between turbines and domestic houses. 

Farmers love them, due to as you say the $$$, but due to setbacks to housing almost no regular farmer can actually place them on their land as the average farm is ~1000 acres which means on average 1 house etc on that land and it is central location instead of in a corner and the neighbors house ALSO being in a corner, siting said turbine with the offsets are actually becoming fairly rare in places like Iowa which has ~12GW installed by now.  So, the only farmers who can, are generally speaking gigantic co-op farms or the size of the WTG has to be smaller.  And then getting them to agree for a mere $5000 or maybe $10,000 a year when their business is ~$10,000,000 or easily double this or more while doable is fairly hard as they tend to be co-ops which run by bureaucratic fiat whom do not act according to financial reality as they have boards who have to vote and make "studies" and "committee's" etc etc instead of talking to a single person and getting a yes/no.  In co-op's there is always one cowardly ignorant asshat who just has to bring lawyers into the picture which brings everything to a grinding halt as there are always enough fence sitters unwilling to tell the asshat to go take a long walk off a short dock while contemplating the need for OXYGEN to survive.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Farmers love them, due to as you say the $$$, but due to setbacks to housing almost no regular farmer can actually place them on their land as the average farm is ~1000 acres which means on average 1 house etc on that land and it is central location instead of in a corner and the neighbors house ALSO being in a corner, siting said turbine with the offsets are actually becoming fairly rare in places like Iowa which has ~12GW installed by now.  So, the only farmers who can, are generally speaking gigantic co-op farms or the size of the WTG has to be smaller.  And then getting them to agree for a mere $5000 or maybe $10,000 a year when their business is ~$10,000,000 or easily double this or more while doable is fairly hard as they tend to be co-ops which run by bureaucratic fiat whom do not act according to financial reality as they have boards who have to vote and make "studies" and "committee's" etc etc instead of talking to a single person and getting a yes/no.  In co-op's there is always one cowardly ignorant asshat who just has to bring lawyers into the picture which brings everything to a grinding halt as there are always enough fence sitters unwilling to tell the asshat to go take a long walk off a short dock while contemplating the need for OXYGEN to survive.

I read an article 10-11 years ago where a mid west farmer had about 20 turbines on his family owned farm which was probably in the 2000-3000 acre size range. He said that $8,000 payment hitting the bank account each month had got him off the bank managers hook. He was able to self fund reinvestment in the farm. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I read an article 10-11 years ago where a mid west farmer had about 20 turbines on his family owned farm which was probably in the 2000-3000 acre size range. He said that $8,000 payment hitting the bank account each month had got him off the bank managers hook. He was able to self fund reinvestment in the farm. 

Yup, and way too many turbines per acre.  No one does that anymore.  See spacing links I gave earlier.  2k to 3k acres... damn; big farm.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/13/2021 at 11:19 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

seaborne hydrogen infrastructure is being put in place to transport NG-derived hydrogen from Australia to Japan.

Why would they not just pipe NG to the water gas reactors located at whichever plant needs the hydrogen? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/13/2021 at 10:30 AM, Strangelovesurfing said:

Would it be more efficient to use tanker sized flow batteries instead of converting to traditional liquid/gas fuels?

Much more value creation in the latter. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Why would they not just pipe NG to the water gas reactors located at whichever plant needs the hydrogen? 

Becdause the NG is produced in Australia and the used to produce hydrogen in Australia. The resulting hydrogen is then shipped to Japan. For reasons that escape me, this is somehow more economical than shipping LNG to Japan and converting it there.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Becdause the NG is produced in Australia and the used to produce hydrogen in Australia. The resulting hydrogen is then shipped to Japan. For reasons that escape me, this is somehow more economical than shipping LNG to Japan and converting it there.

I'm really curious now. Time for some research. Do you know if they're capturing the CO2 biproduct?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

19 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm really curious now. Time for some research. Do you know if they're capturing the CO2 biproduct?

I googled <australia japan hydrogen>.   It's worse than I recalled: they are starting from COAL, not NG. They claim to be using CCS, but CCS is basically a sham because the CO2 is not truly sequestered in any real sense.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/112020-australia-japan-hydrogen-project-eyes-full-operations-by-next-decade-conference

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 2/13/2021 at 7:07 PM, NickW said:

0.01% on bank deposits if you are lucky

I meant if you invested in the stock-market or other types of investment forexample paying down and switching to a cheaper mortgage. I know it is not apples to apples but some sort of comparison is possible. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I meant if you invested in the stock-market or other types of investment forexample paying down and switching to a cheaper mortgage. I know it is not apples to apples but some sort of comparison is possible. 

Stock market investments have their risks if the timing is wrong and no guarantee of a return. A better comparison would be against a mortgage paydown which generates cash flow in a similar way as an investment in energy efficiency / home renewables and is a guaranteed return.

I currently pay 1.35% interest on my mortgage.