Vestas launch 15MW Offshore Turbine

[NickW + 2,714]

Vestas over take siemens and GE

Vestas to Launch Giant 15MW Offshore Wind Turbine (oedigital.com)

no doubt Higher capacity factors & availability. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

The screen shot below is the EIA power dashboard for the US, showing as of 3:00 PM February 10th demand for 500Gw. (500,000Mwh each hour would be 500,000Megawatts of demand at a particular moment).

15Megawatts * .6 'productivity factor' = 9 Mw average actual output.

500,510 / 9 = 55,612 turbines.

236 meters x 3 feet = 700 foot diameter. Turbine spacing is often 3x, so these turbines will be separated by 2100 feet. This works out basically to 4 per square mile. 55,512 / 4 = 13,903, or basically 14,000 square miles.

The area of Lake Superior, by comparison, is 31,700 square miles.

sqrt(14,000) = square 118 miles on a side.

The Gulf of Mexico alone has vast amounts of available space for turbines.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

57 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

The screen shot below is the EIA power dashboard for the US, showing as of 3:00 PM February 10th demand for 500Gw. (500,000Mwh each hour would be 500,000Megawatts of demand at a particular moment).

15Megawatts * .6 'productivity factor' = 9 Mw average actual output.

500,510 / 9 = 55,612 turbines.

236 meters x 3 feet = 700 foot diameter. Turbine spacing is often 3x, so these turbines will be separated by 2100 feet. This works out basically to 4 per square mile. 55,512 / 4 = 13,903, or basically 14,000 square miles.

sqrt(14,000) = square 118 miles on a side.

The Gulf of Mexico alone has vast amounts of available space for turbines.

Uh, not even close.  Distance between rotors 30 years ago was ~3X which was hopelessly idiotic.  Today, it is over double and still idiotic at the best in your case.  By the wind rose for prevailing wind, distance is more like 10X or 15X or greater between rotors and for abreast it depends on the wind rose. If there is a single DOMINANT direction you can get as close as 5X, but generally speaking is much higher.  This distance keeps increasing with ever increasing rotor size as gaining maximum return(collecting higher speed wind) is more important and cost efficient than running a longer power cable. 

So, generally speaking you will NEVER see a line of wind turbines ever again in any future wind farm except spaced exceedingly far apart.  So, Lets go with 10X rotor as I like round numbers even though studies a decade ago said 15X.  ~700x10 = ~1.5miles or 2.25square miles per rotor. 

NIT: 55,600 is absurdly low as you have to have new/old and those in maintenance.  But hey, lets just assume 55,600 working turbines or round up to 60,000 as I like round numbers and grids that work.

60,000*2.25 ~ 150,000 square miles.  Or you have to cover the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and you still can't as you have offsets for distance to housing etc, so in reality need to completely cover Iowa, S. Dakota, and probably a good portion of N. Dakota as well. 

Doable?  Yes.  Realistic?   Going to need to spread those turbines into Texas for different wind patterns and over into the great lakes etc, but doable, yes.  Steel production will need to double along with concrete, but doable, yes.  Likewise, not going with aluminum blades is just dumb if you asked me when talking on a scale this large as aluminum once extracted into its metal form is the cheapest metal to recycle. 

Gulf of Mexico essentially has no wind(nothing near the equator(+/- ~30N/S) does for the most part.  Great lakes, Great plains, have wind.  Off the coast of Maine has wind.  Off the coast of NC has some wind.  Off the Coast of Oregon/CA border has wind.  Hawaii... has some great wind but no place to put the turbines as it is REALLY REALLY deep or getting anchors in would be next to impossible is what I read on an old ocean wind article 20 years ago.  Alaska has wind... But its Alaska...

EDIT: Perspective: If one completely covered the North Sea in ~100,000 such turbines, it would potentially collect roughly 1000GWh per hour every day, every week, every year.  Still need a giant energy storage solution, and with this excess power could start to get rid of NG for heating industrial process and residential heating.  Still have all the energy required to be collected for changing to electric over coal/oil/ng of industrial products, but at least it is a start

Edited February 10, 2021 by footeab@yahoo.com

[markslawson + 1,057]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

Vestas over take siemens and GE

Vestas to Launch Giant 15MW Offshore Wind Turbine (oedigital.com)

no doubt Higher capacity factors & availability. 

 

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The area of Lake Superior, by comparison, is 31,700 square miles.

sqrt(14,000) = square 118 miles on a side.

The Gulf of Mexico alone has vast amounts of available space for turbines.

Oh sure - if you want to spend money on that scale and power consumers are happy to pay the higher bills go ahead. As has been pointed out many times in these threads, offshore wind towers have a higher capacity factor than onshore and, as they are well away from humans, can be built larger. However, you have all the additional expense of building the pylons and such often well out to sea, and then servicing/repairing them. Remember they are in water (sea water in the Gulf of Mexico) and subjected to violent storms. How often would they have to be overhauled/replaced? Far more often than their onshore counterparts, I'll bet. Then they still have to be supported in some way - batteries/gas plants and so on. Its a sign of the desperation of the wind industry, and lack of tolerance for the generators on land, that these turbines are out at sea at all.. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

60,000*2.25 ~ 150,000 square miles.  Or you have to cover the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and you still can't as you have offsets for distance to housing etc, so in reality need to completely cover Iowa, S. Dakota, and probably a good portion of N. Dakota as well. 

Pulling up the EIA dashboard provides a verifiable source, rather than someone taking my word for it. Our numbers are low, given that this is February, not July.

Square root of 160,000 is 400 miles. I'll defer to you on the spacing requirements, but given that this is offshore a square 400 miles isn't a particularly big deal. Realistically, by the time 'we' (meaning the United States) started covering that much water in turbines, a good chunk of it will be off the coast of Canada. While Massachusetts is NIMBY, there might not be so much resistance in Labrador. Some parts of Lake Superior are sufficiently deep that no one is going to install turbines there.

 

 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

Its a sign of the desperation of the wind industry, and lack of tolerance for the generators on land, that these turbines are out at sea at all..

Have you tried hauling 350 foot (118 meter) wind turbine blades around on freeways?

"The An-225's pressurized cargo hold is 1,300 m3 (46,000 cu ft) in volume; 6.4 m (21 ft 0 in) wide, 4.4 m (14 ft) high, and 43.35 m (142 ft 3 in) long". In other words, the largest aircraft in service would have one of these blades sticking out both ends.

At some point, structures get so large that they can only be carried around on ships.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Uh, not even close.  Distance between rotors 30 years ago was ~3X which was hopelessly idiotic.  Today, it is over double and still idiotic at the best in your case.  By the wind rose for prevailing wind, distance is more like 10X or 15X or greater between rotors and for abreast it depends on the wind rose. If there is a single DOMINANT direction you can get as close as 5X, but generally speaking is much higher.  This distance keeps increasing with ever increasing rotor size as gaining maximum return(collecting higher speed wind) is more important and cost efficient than running a longer power cable. 

So, generally speaking you will NEVER see a line of wind turbines ever again in any future wind farm except spaced exceedingly far apart.  So, Lets go with 10X rotor as I like round numbers even though studies a decade ago said 15X.  ~700x10 = ~1.5miles or 2.25square miles per rotor. 

NIT: 55,600 is absurdly low as you have to have new/old and those in maintenance.  But hey, lets just assume 55,600 working turbines or round up to 60,000 as I like round numbers and grids that work.

60,000*2.25 ~ 150,000 square miles.  Or you have to cover the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and you still can't as you have offsets for distance to housing etc, so in reality need to completely cover Iowa, S. Dakota, and probably a good portion of N. Dakota as well. 

Doable?  Yes.  Realistic?   Going to need to spread those turbines into Texas for different wind patterns and over into the great lakes etc, but doable, yes.  Steel production will need to double along with concrete, but doable, yes.  Likewise, not going with aluminum blades is just dumb if you asked me when talking on a scale this large as aluminum once extracted into its metal form is the cheapest metal to recycle. 

Gulf of Mexico essentially has no wind(nothing near the equator(+/- ~30N/S) does for the most part.  Great lakes, Great plains, have wind.  Off the coast of Maine has wind.  Off the coast of NC has some wind.  Off the Coast of Oregon/CA border has wind.  Hawaii... has some great wind but no place to put the turbines as it is REALLY REALLY deep or getting anchors in would be next to impossible is what I read on an old ocean wind article 20 years ago.  Alaska has wind... But its Alaska...

EDIT: Perspective: If one completely covered the North Sea in ~100,000 such turbines, it would potentially collect roughly 1000GWh per hour every day, every week, every year.  Still need a giant energy storage solution, and with this excess power could start to get rid of NG for heating industrial process and residential heating.  Still have all the energy required to be collected for changing to electric over coal/oil/ng of industrial products, but at least it is a start

Natural gas is best for heating and can meet all the same needs much easier and without the expense or maintenance that wind turbines and power lines require. Also it does not have the vast amount of visual pollution required by wind turbines. Any offshore wind turbines would have to be beyond the horizon from land. All technologies can be used and at a much better cost. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Have you tried hauling 350 foot (118 meter) wind turbine blades around on freeways?

"The An-225's pressurized cargo hold is 1,300 m3 (46,000 cu ft) in volume; 6.4 m (21 ft 0 in) wide, 4.4 m (14 ft) high, and 43.35 m (142 ft 3 in) long". In other words, the largest aircraft in service would have one of these blades sticking out both ends.

At some point, structures get so large that they can only be carried around on ships.

Maybe use a Hindenberg (or two) instead?

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by turbguy

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

 

Oh sure - if you want to spend money on that scale and power consumers are happy to pay the higher bills go ahead. As has been pointed out many times in these threads, offshore wind towers have a higher capacity factor than onshore and, as they are well away from humans, can be built larger. However, you have all the additional expense of building the pylons and such often well out to sea, and then servicing/repairing them. Remember they are in water (sea water in the Gulf of Mexico) and subjected to violent storms. How often would they have to be overhauled/replaced? Far more often than their onshore counterparts, I'll bet. Then they still have to be supported in some way - batteries/gas plants and so on. Its a sign of the desperation of the wind industry, and lack of tolerance for the generators on land, that these turbines are out at sea at all.. 

No ones going to build in the Gulf of Mexico - its poor wind country and generally too deep. NE USA, The great lakes are the best locations in the US until floating turbines are matured

The electricity is transmitted to land via under sea cables rather than pylons. Interestingly land based conventional generating units also need cables (above or below ground) for grid connections. Same story for oil and gas platforms😉

Rather than desperation going large is what has made wind competitive with other technology. Higher hub height means more consistent wind resource, higher capacity factors and higher availability time. 

It also introduces economy of scale in terms of materials. 1 15MW turbine uses far less material than 15 1 MW turbines

Larger turbines reduce installation costs per MW of capacity

Larger turbines reduces maintenance costs per MW of capacity. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Have you tried hauling 350 foot (118 meter) wind turbine blades around on freeways?

"The An-225's pressurized cargo hold is 1,300 m3 (46,000 cu ft) in volume; 6.4 m (21 ft 0 in) wide, 4.4 m (14 ft) high, and 43.35 m (142 ft 3 in) long". In other words, the largest aircraft in service would have one of these blades sticking out both ends.

At some point, structures get so large that they can only be carried around on ships.

5-6MW is the upper end of what can currently be built onshore unless next to a dock. 

However  potential developments may overcome that. 

1. 2/3 piece turbine blades 

2. 3D printing of blades on site

3. Assembly of the turbine and nacelle on site

[notsonice + 1,255]

80 meters now . Build a longer blade and truckers will find a way

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Have you tried hauling 350 foot (118 meter) wind turbine blades around on freeways?

"The An-225's pressurized cargo hold is 1,300 m3 (46,000 cu ft) in volume; 6.4 m (21 ft 0 in) wide, 4.4 m (14 ft) high, and 43.35 m (142 ft 3 in) long". In other words, the largest aircraft in service would have one of these blades sticking out both ends.

At some point, structures get so large that they can only be carried around on ships.

Edited February 11, 2021 by notsonice

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

80 meters now . Build a longer blade and truckers will find a way

Interesting to see the saw tooth pattern on the blades. This apparently halves noise emissions from the turbine. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

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.

[NickW + 2,714]

49 minutes ago, 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.

To date all development has been close enough that this option has not been considered. The Uk  is currently building >1GW farms 60-70km off shore. 

Once floating turbines are fully developed then the power to liquids options becomes more viable. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

No ones going to build in the Gulf of Mexico - its poor wind country and generally too deep. NE USA, The great lakes are the best locations in the US until floating turbines are matured

The electricity is transmitted to land via under sea cables rather than pylons. Interestingly land based conventional generating units also need cables (above or below ground) for grid connections. Same story for oil and gas platforms😉

Rather than desperation going large is what has made wind competitive with other technology. Higher hub height means more consistent wind resource, higher capacity factors and higher availability time. 

It also introduces economy of scale in terms of materials. 1 15MW turbine uses far less material than 15 1 MW turbines

Larger turbines reduce installation costs per MW of capacity

Larger turbines reduces maintenance costs per MW of capacity. 

I love the Great Lakes and they are my prime vacation target. Within a few hours of my house. I have no objection to them beyond the horizon but am wondering if Greenies would. Why not build where the wind is best and in fresh water. The great north needs the work too. I am surprised they are not already there. Are there any off the rich coast near the big cities yet? The area should be enough to electrify the Midwest and East with no problem. Possibly the whole country. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

To date all development has been close enough that this option has not been considered. The Uk  is currently building >1GW farms 60-70km off shore. 

Once floating turbines are fully developed then the power to liquids options becomes more viable. 

Agreed. The difference here is that these are apparently preliminary design studies being done by the two major companies in the offshore wind industry, not academic or think-tank studies. As far as these guys are concerned, floating wind is well developed (not fully developed yet) and it is time to begin developing the next generation to keep their businesses growing.  If (big if) this works out it addresses both the long-haul transport problem and the long-term storage problem.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, 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.

Can you give examples of ammonia used for fuel? How would it compete with LNG? Many have promoted methanol, but no acceptance. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Can you give examples of ammonia used for fuel? How would it compete with LNG? Many have promoted methanol, but no acceptance. 

There is a whole industry group for this:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/topics/nh3-internal-combustion-engine/

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

50 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

There is a whole industry group for this:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/topics/nh3-internal-combustion-engine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Ammonia is low compared to LNG. 

 

Very interesting. I am in favor of the best technologies, considering all factors over the long run. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by ronwagn
reference

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

15Megawatts * .6 'productivity factor' = 9 Mw average actual output.

Isn't offshore typically 40-50% capacity factor? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Can you give examples of ammonia used for fuel? How would it compete with LNG? Many have promoted methanol, but no acceptance. 

Ammonia is a massively important commodity chemical, so its production will need to be integrated with these new methods regardless. 

Problem right now is that ammonia plants need to be guaranteed a price for hydrogen that wouldn't be sustainable for capital payoff on wind farms. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

22 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

 

236 meters x 3 feet = 700 foot diameter. Turbine spacing is often 3x,

MY knowledge on WTG spacing is a bit dated so wanted a new number instead of what has been rattling around in my head for last 10 years.  Here is a rough compendium 2018 on WTG spacing : Type this into google and it should be first thing that pops up: Analysis of Turbine Layouts and Spacing Between Wind Farms for Potential New York State Offshore Wind Development   Page 2.  Data in paragraph summary:

~0.01MW/acre ~~ 6MW turbine ~ 1 square mile

15MW turbine ~ 2.5 square miles, or nearly exactly what I calculated in previous post of spacing average of ~10X rotor diameter

I have read papers which say 0.005 MW/acre, but could not find a source sorry.  So, the ~0.01MW/acre seems good enough for an internet discussion. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

12 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Isn't offshore typically 40-50% capacity factor? 

Capacity factor is an arbitrary unit, but as arbitrary units goes... is completely and utterly dependent on the local wind resource conditions and has zilch to do with said turbine.  Same turbine in a different location could have a capacity factor twice as small/large than another location. 

Land based Capacity factors likewise work the same way.  Best wind locations have CF's ~50%, poor locations... as low as idiot fools install said political boondogles go...

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

18 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Capacity factor is an arbitrary unit, but as arbitrary units goes... is completely and utterly dependent on the local wind resource conditions and has zilch to do with said turbine.  Same turbine in a different location could have a capacity factor twice as small/large than another location. 

Land based Capacity factors likewise work the same way.  Best wind locations have CF's ~50%, poor locations... as low as idiot fools install said political boondogles go...

The point was that 60% is 10% higher than the upper bound. Obviously it can be 20%. Obviously it can be 50%. But not 60%, yet. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

11 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The point was that 60% is 10% higher than the upper bound. Obviously it can be 20%. Obviously it can be 50%. But not 60%, yet. 

Actually, partially true/false, assuming you wish to play the CF circle jerk game.  I was doing a study for 60% back in early 2000's in Kansas.  The only hinderance was tower height and we guessed that for a CF of a nominal turbine would require at least 150m height.  Well, biggest turbines today: 120m blades with 30m of ground clearance for ocean models.  Now if this was land 30m ground clearance would not work and you would destroy your gearbox pronto, but for an ocean blade with very little turbulence?  Probably.  Though frankly I doubt it unless they have some SERIOUSLY expensive load alleviation equipment that works on EVERY revolution on the down blade.  At least the blades spin rate is low enough the deployment of said devices(spoilers usually) should be doable.  Then again, haven't read anything about them using spoilers, but I have been out of it for a decade.  BTW: Isn't Beatrice in Scotland already working at 55% CF last year?  True, it is brand spanking new which means in 5 years or 10 years it will drop ~5% down to 50% or so, but still. 

PS: GE Hallide X 12MW just "miraculously" ... get this, became the Hallide X 13MW turbine or is it 14MW now?.... no change in rotor diameter, just switch out/add generator capacity... Gosh golly jeepers, its CF is going to take a hit!.... oh wait it is probably collecting 10% more power though... oh right no one cares about CF if you have something to balance the grid with.