Vestas launch 15MW Offshore Turbine

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

You missed my point - the desperation part is going offshore, although that move also allows for larger turbines.. as going offshore is so much more expensive. The rest of your post would seem to confirm that. Sure you can have fancy technology linking these things with the shore and so on .. I have no doubt that larger turbines would be more efficient but the basic problems remain. Leave it with you.. 

In densely populated parts of the world (Europe etc)  the land isn't available to build wind farms on the scale needed. 

The offshore  turbines are heading towards 3x the size of land based ones. Along with higher wind speeds this offsets part of the additional costs of going offshore. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If you dig into the numbers, I'll bet they kept adding turbines from 2006 til ??? and then you have seasonal variations.  Peak 2016... windy year, or maximum number of turbines operating?  And yes, you have erosion/UV damage on blades creating more drag, less lift over time and yes it becomes significant to the point they replace the blades.

I believe Scroby was built in one go. Its interesting because its one of the oldest with small turbines (2MW) but doesn't appear to have suffered the classic year or year decline yet. Seasonal and annual variations granted - thats the nature of the resource. 

Where extensions are built to farms they are normally listed as such. For example Walney 1,2,3 &4 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

How do you think that will work out in scenic areas. Not well I hope. Power stations make up maybe 1% the visual pollution that wind or solar does. 

Easier for CCGT and gas wells to meet that reciprocal clause then. 

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

Meredith - like NickW you almost totally missed my point. Building these things is bad enough but you're trying to build structures actually driven by wind to withstand full sea gales. The fact that the blades are easier to transport by ship - two lifting helicopters might do it, incidentally, but that's beside the point - is just one of a number of factors to take into account in what is essentially a daft idea. Just sit down and think of the engineering required and then the costs in servicing and regular replacement of parts. I might point out in passing that you're talking about putting these things in the Great Lakes, so you have to get the parts across land to a lake port, and then they have to be  built to withstand lake storms, which have quite different patterns to those of ocean storms, or so I understand. Obviously a lot of wind generators have already been built at sea but to propose that its somehow cheaper and more convenient that land turbines is clearly absurd.. they are built offshore because they have to be.. anyway, teh conv ersation has gone about as far as it can.. leave it with you.. 

The alternate world of Mark Lawson.........

Meanwhile

Wind turbine blades are invariably manufactured at dockside locations where they can be loaded directly onto vessels to transport to the wind farm location. 

Shipping 24 Giant Wind Turbine Blades by Barge up the Mississippi River! - Bing video

Wind turbines have a variety of measures to counter extreme conditions. The simplest is turning the blades out of the wind and stopping the turbine 

Many turbines can also feather the blades to slow down the rotation if necessary. 

 

[turbguy + 1,402]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The alternate world of Mark Lawson.........

Meanwhile

Wind turbine blades are invariably manufactured at dockside locations where they can be loaded directly onto vessels to transport to the wind farm location. 

Shipping 24 Giant Wind Turbine Blades by Barge up the Mississippi River! - Bing video

Wind turbines have a variety of measures to counter extreme conditions. The simplest is turning the blades out of the wind and stopping the turbine 

Many turbines can also feather the blades to slow down the rotation if necessary. 

 

I know that there is some measure of lightning protection built into these machines, and am curious how effective that is.  These machines must be some of the best "lightning attractors" ever built.  The "strength" of individual strikes can vary considerably. The Insurance Industry must have some language built into contracts to address this risk.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

23 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.

The reason operators are looking into Hydrogen and ammonia is storage not energy transport. HVDC technology solves the transportation issue. But other than that I agree. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The reason operators are looking into Hydrogen and ammonia is storage not energy transport. HVDC technology solves the transportation issue. But other than that I agree. 

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.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

In densely populated parts of the world (Europe etc)  the land isn't available to build wind farms on the scale needed. 

The offshore  turbines are heading towards 3x the size of land based ones. Along with higher wind speeds this offsets part of the additional costs of going offshore. 

1) land isn't available due to offsets to residential sites everywhere in the world actually, not just Europe. 

2) Turbines are headed to much larger than 3X if they... change their design, but currently they are trying for profitablility instead of research projects. 

3) Ocean has consistent winds, and lower gust loads, or turbulence which is why it is superior, not generally speaking higher wind velocity.  Land has same wind speed, but you just have to place it on a higher tower.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, notsonice said:

Just place them on land in Illinois where the power is consumed and deal with it. Placing them in others backyards so you do not see them is your only solution? If they were to be placed in the Great lakes IE Lake Michigan, they will need to be within 10 miles of shore where the lake is shallow enough. 

If counties in Illinois want to give permits then fine if they take a vote of the people. If people in Michigan want them then fine, if they vote them in. I  would always vote against them. I promote natural gas. Windmills and solar panels are not my preference. Are they yours?

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) land isn't available due to offsets to residential sites everywhere in the world actually, not just Europe. 

2) Turbines are headed to much larger than 3X if they... change their design, but currently they are trying for profitablility instead of research projects. 

3) Ocean has consistent winds, and lower gust loads, or turbulence which is why it is superior, not generally speaking higher wind velocity.  Land has same wind speed, but you just have to place it on a higher tower.

Hence the addition of an etc in my original comment

However countries like OZ, USA and Canada have huge expanses of plains with low to moderate food productivity and population   which can easily accommodate huge onshore wind farms. 

I suspect offshore development is helping to drive up the size of onshore which typically are 4-5MW now which is bigger than 1st gen offshore turbines. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:48 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

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.

What would happen in ammonia spills. Would it mix with water or quickly dissipate in the air?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, ronwagn said:

What would happen in ammonia spills. Would it mix with water or quickly dissipate in the air?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia

Dissipate in the air - drive past an intensive feedlot - you can smell the Ammonia in the air. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Dissipate in the air - drive past an intensive feedlot - you can smell the Ammonia in the air. 

They seem to be missing an income stream for the feedlot. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Dissipate in the air - drive past an intensive feedlot - you can smell the Ammonia in the air. 

Not to be disagreeable, but what you uh, smell, is cow piss and shit.... 🤑

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not to be disagreeable, but what you uh, smell, is cow piss and shit.... 🤑

Of which Ammonia is a major component. 

Horse Manure is has a high Ammonia content. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

They seem to be missing an income stream for the feedlot. 

The cost of Biogas plant is coming down. Another benefit of economy of scale. The obvious  solution is to load it into an Anaerobic digester and make gas - either use directly for a source of electricity and heat or clean up and dump into the gas grid if nearby. 

The Ammonia rich digestate can then be used to fertilise the land. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by NickW

[Symmetry + 109]

26 minutes ago, NickW said:

Dissipate in the air - drive past an intensive feedlot - you can smell the Ammonia in the air. 

Ammonia will also easily dissolve in water, mostly as the ammonium ion.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

47 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

If counties in Illinois want to give permits then fine if they take a vote of the people. If people in Michigan want them then fine, if they vote them in. I  would always vote against them. I promote natural gas. Windmills and solar panels are not my preference. Are they yours?

Well, you can't have windmills without natural gas so... Guess you will get half of what you want. 

Everyone seems bound and determined to kill tons of birds with the meat grinders. 

Actually, at 15MW, wind turbines are starting to make economical sense if you have a bottomless supply of NG. 

Next size up?  30MW or 60MW.  Someone who is in power will finally pull their heads of out their arses and realize that these giants are for oceans where they do not give a damn about noise, thrown ice, and since in oceans the tower cost is the majority of the cost due to its expensive anchoring/location, rotors on both ends of he windmill will soon be added where the aft end of the circular tower will not be circular anymore, but tapered and they will likewise increase the CL at which they are operating which leads to higher noise.  Currently they are harvesting very little of the power from said volume.  True, this will lead to a MUCH greater distance between WTG's(Wind turbine Generators), but overall the cost will be lower. 

[notsonice + 1,076]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

If counties in Illinois want to give permits then fine if they take a vote of the people. If people in Michigan want them then fine, if they vote them in. I  would always vote against them. I promote natural gas. Windmills and solar panels are not my preference. Are they yours?

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. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by notsonice

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

44 minutes ago, NickW said:

Hence the addition of an etc in my original comment

However countries like OZ, USA and Canada have huge expanses of plains with low to moderate food productivity and population   which can easily accommodate huge onshore wind farms. 

I suspect offshore development is helping to drive up the size of onshore which typically are 4-5MW now which is bigger than 1st gen offshore turbines. 

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. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

3 minutes 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 got 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. 

All the rich snots who own lakeshore property are not ok with it.  Biggest Wind Turbine Park in the world was going in on the shallow Lake... Erie I believe, but was lawyered to oblivion by leftists who vote for Green, but not where they can see what their votes require in reality.  I believe a tiny portion of the project is trying to go forward...

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

34 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Ammonia will also easily dissolve in water, mostly as the ammonium ion.

 

That will seriously raise the pH of the water if there are significant leaks. I don't really care about this, however, but I suspect that environmentalists won't be too happy.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Out of curiosity... Perhaps one of you can answer a question I've had regarding green hydrogen.

Is it economically feasible to supply hydrogen for $0.50 per kilogram? 

EDIT: I'm tempted to open another discussion about this one. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[markslawson + 1,042]

23 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, totally ridiculous.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cutty_Sark_(ship,_1869)_-_SLV_H91.250-164.jpg

Here mainmast is about the same length as the hull: 212 feet.

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.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

The alternate world of Mark Lawson.........

Meanwhile

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.